Native American Children and Youth Well-Being Indicators

ContentsAbstract 5Executive Summary 6Project Background 7Purpose 7Literature Review 8S t rengths Perspective 1140 Developmental Assets Framework 13Moving from the Deficit Orientation to the Strengths Perspective 13Proposed Model to Compare Human Well-Being Concepts 20Research Methods 24Data Collection 25O v e rview of Sample 26Discussion of Sample 27Native American Strengths Identified 28Findings 30Qualitative Findings 30Quantitative Findings 32Verification of Findings 36Comparison With Other Frameworks 37Strengths and Limitations of the Research 42Recommendations 43R e s e a rc h 43P o l i c y 44P r a c t i c e 45Conclusion 47References 48Appendices 533

List of Tables and FiguresTable 1: Native American Strengths Identified 2 9Table 2: Identified Strength and Frequency of Occurre n c e 3 2Table 3: Three Domains of Native American Well-Being Indicators ModelC o m p a red with the Search Institute Framework (Search Institute, 2002) 3 8Table 4: S u m m a ry of Comparison between Three Domains of NativeAmerican Well-Being Indicators Model and Five Life Domains( B o w e r- A n d rews & Ben-Arieh, 1999) 4 1F i g u re 1: Two Views of Human Well-Being Model 23F i g u re 2: Types of Research Methods Used 26F i g u re 3: Type of Publication Reviewed 27F i g u re 4: Geographic Area Repre s e n t e d 27F i g u re 5: Themes of Native American Stre n g t h s 31F i g u re 6: Domains of Native American Well-Being Factors 33F i g u re 7: Domains and Suggested Behaviors 354

Literature ReviewTwo major viewpoints are examined in this reportconcerning how human behavior is conceptualizedand organized. The first viewpoint assumesthat human behavior is influenced by reason andlogical positions: humans are objective, they utilizelinear models, and they believe in cause andeffect. The second viewpoint assumes thathuman behavior is subjective and that humansbelieve in a cyclical process and a multidimensionalinteraction within the environment. One ofthe major concepts of this second viewpoint isthat “realities are multiple” (Lincoln & Guba,1985, p. 37). These two views of human behaviorhave influenced how social science researchis approached and conducted—quantitativeresearch is based mainly on the first viewpointand qualitative research is based on the second(Creswell, 1998). These two positions have alsoinfluenced how helping professionals and medicalpersonnel are educated to work with clientsand/or patients, as well as how professionalsview the individual, the group, and the importanceof interacting with their environments.The first position is based on assumptions, concepts,and beliefs that lead toward a pathologicaland/or disease orientation or the utilization ofwhat is known as the “deficit perspective” tounderstand and organize behavior. The deficitperspective has at its core the belief in stigmatizationof behavior, labeling of a person, use ofpsychiatric classification systems such as theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders (American Psychiatric Association[APA], 1994), and use of problem-solvingmethodologies.Briefly, the problem-solving model looks for problemsfirst and foremost. The interaction with theclient is based on discussing and assessingproblems. The model includes problem identification,problem data collection, problem assessment,selecting interventions, and finally problemevaluation and termination with the client and/orpatient system. Often the helping person isviewed as “the expert,” and the client is viewedas “receiving the help”; this leads to a power differentialof expert (professional) and not expert(client and/or patient). This model is widespreadbecause it is taught in many universities and collegesand used by many helping professionals.On the other hand, the strengths perspective isalmost the opposite of the deficit perspective.The difference in perspective does not mean thatone is better than the other. The viewpoints arenot values; they are ways to understand humanbehavior. These positions offer a balance in howhuman behavior is viewed and understood.The strengths perspective seeks first and foremostto understand the individual’s personalstory in his or her own language. The strengthsperspective assumes that each person has aunique and special story to tell and that each8

individual should develop his or her own visionand direction for a healthy future. Identification ofindividual strengths is considered essential inhelping to guide the direction of the individual’splan. While the helping professional is not consideredto be in the same position of power andauthority as in other practice frameworks, thefacilitator role is paramount, and the individual isalso encouraged to show a great sense of personalpower. With the strengths perspective,reframing the situation is often helpful andencouraging to the client; problems are not overlookedbut are seen from a different viewpoint.These two views of human behavior (deficit andstrengths) exist in our society in different ways.First, the widespread deficit perspective largelydetermines how Native American children, families,and cultures are often thought about, evaluated,and classified; they are seen as “problem”individuals, communities, and tribes. Frequently,how we think determines how we act toward theindividual.As a result of the historical Westernized view ofhealth, national studies have taken more of adeficit perspective to examine the well-being ofchildren and youth. Often well-being indicatorsare obtained from rates of poverty, levels of education,rates of unemployment, and health status(Children’s Defense Fund, 1999; United NationsChildren’s Fund, 2001; Federal InteragencyForum on Child and Family Statistics, 1999;Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2001).National researchers study children’s behaviorusing objective tests, instruments, and surveysby developing variables that focus on the deficitsof the individual. Some of these indicators arebased on infant birth weights, infant mortalityrates, poverty rates, employment figures, teenpregnancy rates, school dropout rates, andsingle parent data.A comprehensive list of 60 well-being indicatorscan be found in Brown’s (1997) chapter“Indicators of Children’s Well-Being: A Review ofCurrent Indicators Based on Data from theFederal Statistical System.” These data are analyzedand summarized, and the results make upthe statistics and figures of the majority of wellbeingstudies in the United States. These documentsassist policymakers in making decisionsabout funding for many social, economic, health,and educational programs that help children andtheir parents to improve their lives. There is a rolefor these documents. However, it is time toexpand our thinking in this area to a more holisticand balanced view of the well-being of childrenand youth in their own communities and cultures.Well-being indicators are also shown to beimportant to international groups and policies.The United Nations Convention on the Rights ofthe Child 3 has identified several elements for9

increasing the well-being of all children aroundthe world. Some of the areas identified as beingimportant to children are better health services,improved education, protection from child abuseand neglect, and the right to one’s own cultureand religion (Children’s Rights Working Group,1997). Internationally, the trend is a movementaway from the survival indicators and towardmore positive measurements of child well-being.In 1995, an international consortium, with the cosponsorshipof 11 organizations, was involved ina three-year effort involving 80 experts in 27countries to discuss the shifts in thinking aboutwell-being indicators from the basic deficit frameworkto a strengths orientation (Goerge & Lee,2001). Aber and Jones (1995) stated the followingin Bowers-Andrews and Ben-Arieh’s (1999)article on measuring and monitoring children’swell-being across the world:Another trend is the search for positiveindicators of human status and developmentbeyond survival. With regard to children,social indicator research has essentiallyincluded social “problem” indicators.The body of knowledge about children’sproblems and threats to their survival anddevelopment far exceeds what is knownabout children’s strengths, satisfaction,and realization of opportunities. Evenmeasuring the absence of risk factors ornegative behaviors differs from measuringthe presence of protective factors or positivebehaviors. (p. 107)These experts suggest five life domains forascertaining positive strengths-based indicatorsfor children and youth. The five life domains areas follows:1. Social connectedness (family, peer, and communitygroups)2. Civil life skills (learning cooperation and participationin their own environments)3. Personal life skills (capacity to learn and work)4. Safety and physical status (nature and extentof such threats and conditions under whichchildren feel safe)5. Children’s subculture (children’s work, play,creativity, and consumption) (Bowers-Andrews & Ben-Arieh, 1999)Forty-nine indicators, which illustrate how onemight categorize children’s well-being indicatorsfrom a strengths perspective, were developedfrom these five domains.Bowers-Andrews and Ben-Arieh (1999) continuedby stating that “in short, the selection of indicatorsmust be grounded in a vision thatinformed political and social action can supportchildhood as a phase of human life that is uniqueand inherently valuable to the child and all society”(p. 112). The same authors stated, “We determinedthat no single theoretical framework wouldcover all that we felt was needed. In addition, we10

wanted to be certain that in applying universalconcepts of well-being we would have the latitudeto remain culturally sensitive [in all phases ofthe work]” (Bowers-Andrews & Ben-Arieh, 1999,p. 52). A similar approach is used in this paper—to be culturally and tribally sensitive.Strengths PerspectiveThe strengths perspective has its own academichistory with experts who have written about thistopic for several years. While it is beyond thescope of this paper to address this topic fromdifferent viewpoints, disciplines such as nursingand psychology have recognized the importanceof this orientation and have produced their ownliterature on this topic. There seems to be opennesstoward hearing and learning aboutstrengths in behavior instead of solely concentratingon deficits. Such a shift takes time andpatience since the deficit perspective has beenthe working paradigm in the helping professionsfor many years. The strengths perspective representsa way of viewing human well-being indicatorsand behavior. It is an approach, it is a concept,and it is a perspective, but it has not yetbeen recognized as a social science theory. Thestrengths perspective is now being taught insome schools and departments of social work,psychology, nursing, and in counseling programsas a complementary perspective to the deficitand/or problem-solving model.In order to provide the reader with examples ofstrengths indicators, the researcher presents thefollowing: a sense of humor; the ability to beoptimistic in difficult times; positive social interactionswith family and community; coping behaviorssuch as prayer, meditation, and spirituality;compassion; empathy; listening; storytelling; astrong ethnic identity; the ability to bounce backafter a crisis; and the ability to form lasting friendships.Strengths are culturally defined and valued;a strength in one culture may not be considereda strength in another culture. For example,speaking first in a group and being assertivemay be unacceptable in some cultures, whereasin the mainstream American culture these areconsidered normative behaviors.In order to give the reader an understanding ofthe term “strengths perspective,” the followingare presented as examples of definitions of thestrengths perspective. Saleebey (1996), a recognizedstrengths scholar, discussed strengths fromthe following position:The strengths perspective is a standpoint.Supporters believe that it offers a new wayof thinking and acting professionally.Clearly, it is not a theory. But its emergingbody of principle and method does createopportunities for professional knowing anddoing that go beyond the boundaries ofthe “technical-rational” approach (Schon,1983) so common today. (Saleebey 1996,p. 303)11

Saleebey (1997) later defined the term“strengths”:What people have learned about themselves,others, and their world, personalqualities, traits, and virtues that peoplepossess. What people know about theworld around them. The talents that peoplehave. Cultural and personal stories andlore. Pride … The community as physical,interpersonal, and institutional terrain.(1997 workshop handout, page unknown)Wieck, Rapp, Sullivan, and Kisthardt (1998)applied the term “strengths perspective” to theprofession of social work. Another definition ofstrengths was proposed by Early and GlenMaye(2000): “the strengths approach attempts tounderstand clients in terms of their strengths.This involves systematically examining survivalskills, abilities, knowledge, resources, and desiresthat can be used in some way to help meet clientgoals” (p. 119).Much of the literature on the strengths perspectivecomes from social work and psychology.Gutierrez, Parson, and Cox (1998) and Saleebey(1997) have discussed the value of using thestrengths and empowerment perspective andtechniques with individuals, families, groups,organizations, and communities. 4Rhee, Furlong, Turner, and Harari (2002) statedthat “a strength-based perspective tells a muchricher story about what children and adolescentsare doing to ‘make things happen’ and ‘succeeddespite the odds’ rather than just ‘letting thingshappen’ as passive bystanders in their own liveswith emphasis on how they fall short” (p. 4).The shift to a mainly strengths perspective ismade more difficult by the lack of agreed-upondefinitions regarding strengths, but it is nonethelessbecoming more integrated into the academiccurriculum of practice-oriented disciplines. Insome settings the strengths perspective is beingutilized quite often. Moore (1997) has advocatedfor a more comprehensive set of child indicatorsthat includes “both positive and negative aspectsof well-being” (p. 39). This is a major change indirection in the social sciences.Waller (2001) has discussed the theory, history,and assumptions of the strengths perspectiveand resilience concepts, positing the strengthsand resilience concepts within the grand theoryof “ecosystemic” understanding of behavior inwhich human behavior must be situated withininteractions and interrelationships with varioussystems and environments. Waller (2001) alsostated that “a holistic, ecosystemic perspective iscentral to the strength perspective” (p. 294), anddiscussed resilience in relation to its evolution asa concept in further detail, giving many characteristicsof this concept.As an innovative option for the helping professionals,Saleebey (2001) proposed an adaptation12

to the traditional pathologically-oriented diagnosticand classification systems. He states, “It [is]virtually impossible to consider or make anaccounting of the assets, talents, capabilities,knowledge, survival skills, personal virtues, or theenvironmental resources and cultural treasuressuch as healing rituals and celebrations of life”(Saleebey, 2001, p. 184). He developed a diagnosticsystem regarding strengths in his proposedDiagnostic Strengths Manual. He used theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders (APA, 1994) as a model to frame hisalternative discussion on strengths. Examples ofthe potential strengths he included are “trustworthiness,patience, initiative, and insight”(Saleebey, 2001, p. 185–186). His discussionprovided a beginning recognition of strengths aspotential diagnostic variables. His article receivedmuch attention, and he is hopeful that his frameworkmay lead to more discussion on how to usestrengths within a mainly medical and deficitmodel orientation. As with any social change, ittakes a lot of time and support from many individualswho want this change to occur.40 Developmental AssetsFrameworkThe Search Institute 5 in Minnesota has developeda national framework for assessing andunderstanding developmental assets in childrenand adolescents. The framework, referred to asthe “40 Developmental Assets,” is based on literaturefrom prevention and resiliency theories andmodels. The framework classifies childhood andadolescent behavior into two categories of 20assets each: (1) external assets, which includesupport, empowerment, boundaries and expectations,and constructive use of time; and (2)internal assets, which include commitment tolearning, positive values, social competencies,and positive identity.This framework has been used nationally withmany educational, health, and social programsand has provided the basis for understanding thedevelopmental realities of youth in several communities.It is based on research and studiessince 1990 (www.search-institute.org), is nationallyrecognized, and provides a solid mechanismto identify the assets of youth in their owncommunities.Moving from the DeficitOrientation to the StrengthsPerspectiveWilma Mankiller 6 stated “[When we have] tears inour eyes [it is] difficult to see the future.” 7 Thismetaphor by Mankiller conveys sadness, pain,hurt, and refers to problems from the past.Focusing on problems rather than strengths in aculture may limit our ability to see other possibilitiesfor our people. By moving from the deficitorientation to the strengths perspective, we13

empower ourselves not to be seen as the victimanymore.Historically, Native American children and familieswere viewed by the United States government asa problem that needed to be re-educated and/ordestroyed. Native American children were sent tofederal boarding schools to be re-educated andwere required to attend Christian churches and/ormissions. They had to learn a new set of laws,policies, and behaviors; were forced to relocate tonew lands and acquire new views about property;and were taken away from their families and theircultures by involuntary adoption with non-Indians.Native Americans have been through tremendoussuffering, pain, change, and recovery (Duran,Duran, & Yellow Horse Brave Heart, 1998).However, over the last century, Native Americanshave gone through a remarkable change—frombeing the victims of the United States governmentto developing into strong, growing, and vitalpopulations. This change is reflected in increasedtribal sovereignty, increased population growth,treaties being recognized more often than not, anincreased economic base, and land rights beingreturned. As stated in the American IndianLawyer Training Program (1988):Indian tribes today raise some of the mostprofound contradictions in present society.Long relegated by many to the past tense,Indians have survived generations ofattempts to assimilate their culture andtheir natural resources into the larger society.Proud yesterdays are a valued possession,but progressive todays andtomorrows are the focus of modern triballeaders … This [trend] has led to legislationand court decisions supporting Indiancontrol over such vital issues as child custody,environmental regulation, huntingand fishing, water rights and mineraldevelopment. (p. ix)This statement is as true today as it was in 1988.In spite of these positive social, economic (gaming),and demographic changes, NativeAmericans are still discussed in the literature froma deficit and/or problem perspective. In a reviewby Waller, Risley-Curtiss, Murphy, Medill, andMoore (1998) of social work literature, 171 articleswritten about American Indians over a 20year time span were analyzed, and these authorsstated that “none of the articles focuses on thepersonal, familial, or cultural resources utilized byAmerican Indians who face adverse life circumstances”(p. 66).For this study, the researcher initiated a literaturereview on American Indians/Alaska Natives. Theresearcher began with an internet search by listingkey terms and words such as “AmericanIndian,” “Alaska Native,” “Native American,” “FirstNations,” “Indian children,” and “Native youth”;the citations that came up most often were generallyterms describing problems in the individual,family, and/or community. Common topics14

associated with the above terms were alcoholism,suicide, gangs, child abuse and neglect, childsexual abuse, violence, boarding school, drugs,substance abuse, homicide, and poverty. Few, ifany, strengths or positive indicators of behaviorwere listed. It is time for this situation to changeand for strengths to be associated with NativeAmericans.Werner and Smith (2001) conducted one of theearliest research studies on resiliency and copingstrategies with Indigenous people of Hawaii. Theyconducted a longitudinal study from 1955 to thepresent, involving 698 children who were born in1955. These individuals were studied into theiradulthoods. The study evaluated the impact ofbiological factors, psychological risk factors,stressful life events, and protective factorsimpinging on their lives for several years. Theresults inferred that individuals can cope, strive,learn, grow, and be successful despite the oddsagainst them in their childhoods.The transition between strengths, resiliency, andthe Native American view of well-being has beenaddressed by Bullerdick (2000):Little research and practice has focused onthe strengths of American Indian youth,specifically those factors that may beimportant in overcoming adverse life circumstances.The resiliency model provideda theoretical understanding of the factorsthat are protective for youth and the fac-tors that promote capacity building withinindividuals and groups. The strengths perspectiveprovided guidelines for applyingthe resiliency theoretical framework to thedevelopment of practice and policy.American Indian values and beliefs providethe cultural context. (p. 27)In 1980, a special issue titled “The Phoenix fromthe Flame: The American Indian Today” was publishedin Social Casework: The Journal ofContemporary Social Work. This journal providedAmerican Indian authors the opportunity toaddress various aspects of American Indian cultureand highlighted some of the issues related topolicy, family, education, social systems, elders,leadership, community, urban life, mental health,health services, and foster care and adoptionpractices. It focused on both theory and practiceof these principles with individuals, families, communities,and tribes. While the strengths ofAmerican Indian individuals, families, and communitieswere the underlying themes in many ofthe documents, this was not explicitly stated. Inone of the articles in this special issue, RedHorse (1980) described the extended familystructure and its purpose in the American Indianculture, caring for others, as a major strength:The family is a recognized cornerstone ofAmerican Indian society. It serves as arepository for value orientation that guideshuman behavior, as a transactional milieufor life span socialization, and as a basiccatalyst for cultural revitalization. (p. 462)15

In another article in the same journal, two notedAmerican Indian scholars, Lewis and Deer (1980)describe Native American strengths this way:The strength that comes from enduring isbecoming the cohesive force of today. Thelessons taught by the elders—love for theland, reverence for nature, respect for theCreator, respect for tribal cohesiveness—are even more relevant today. (p. 522)A more current publication by Cross, Earle,Echo-Hawk, and Mannes (2000) examines fivetribal models of mental health care that focus ondeveloping the strengths of American Indian children,youth, families, and communities. The literaturereview is organized using the “relationalworldview model” (Cross, 1995). This modelorganizes the world into four quadrants that mustcome into balance in tribal cultures. The fourquadrants consist of context, mind, body, andspirit, and the model is a Native American view oflife and the integration of its different components.Cross et al. (2000) described the relationalworldview model as:intuitive, non-time oriented and fluid.Balance and harmony in relationships isthe driving principle of this thought system,along with the interplay of spiritualforces. The relational worldview sees life interms of harmonious relationships; healthor wellness is achieved by maintaining balanceamong the many interrelating factorsin one’s circle of life. Every event relates toall other events regardless of time, spaceor physical existence. Health exists onlywhen all elements are in balance or harmony.(p. 8)This view of life is a strength-producing and illness-preventingway of acting, thinking, feeling,and being spiritual with the earth and its beings.Although each tribe has its own worldview andits own model for thinking, behaving, feeling, andbeing spiritual, this model provides overall directionfor tribes.Examples of tribal worldviews include belief andpractice of the principles of the “Medicine Wheel”in the Lakota Nation. Another example is theNavajo Nation, which believes and practices theK’e philosophy. “K’e” can be interpreted as, “Webelieve that every family has the strength andwisdom to walk in beauty” (Cross et al., 2000,p. 31). These two examples of tribal strengthfocusedprograms provide practitioners withmodels expressing balance and recognition ofthe four forces discussed in the relationalworldview.In their report, Cross et al. (2000) also discussedfive tribal programs focusing on their own tribalworldviews as their program philosophy. Theyalso utilized their own community and individualstrengths as the basis of mental health servicesto their tribes. The five projects are the K’eProject (Navajo); Kmihqitahasultipon (WeRemember), Indian Township, Maine; the SacredChild Project, serving four tribes in North Dakota;16

Eagle’s Wings, the Wind River Reservation servingthe Northern Arapaho, Wyoming; and MnoBmaadzid Endaad (Be in Good Health in His[and/or Her] House) Chippewa, Michigan.These programs offer examples of how a morestrengths-oriented perspective may be implementedthrough building on tribal strengths toprovide mental health and human social services.The evaluation process consists of using the fourquadrants (context, mind, body, and spirit) as ameans of obtaining well-being factors from eachprogram. For example, within context theseorganizations found the use of family and extendedfamily as an important factor; within mind,they found the use of culturally-specificapproaches and methods that build up a senseof dignity and strength; within body, they foundimportance of alcohol-free and drug-free events;and within spirit, they found use of traditionalteachings that describe wellness, balance, andharmony as factors to promote the health, balance,and well-being of their members (Cross etal., 2000). Use of these four quadrants demonstratedthe existence of tribal strengths in allaspects of life.The Circles of Care Evaluation TechnicalAssistance Center (National Center for AmericanIndian and Alaska Native Mental HealthResearch, University of Colorado Health andSciences Center, Denver) developed a list ofstrengths-based assessment approaches inworking with their project grantees. The followingis a list of six resiliency and community strengthsfrom a tribal perspective: (1) maintenance of cultureindicated by factors like number of tribalmembers who speak their native language, continuedavailability and use of ceremonies, [residingin] extended families and kin network, [participatingin] social gatherings, [participating in] subsistence[activities]; (2) opportunity structuressuch as singing and drumming; (3) communitystrengths such as nurturing and protection ofchildren and youth and [promoting positive] attitudestowards helping kids and families in need;(4) strength of interpersonal relationships; (5)graduation rates; and (6) reading skills. (Pam LeMaster, University of Colorado Health andScience Center, personal communication,August 21, 2002).In the System of Care models, many tribal programssought to incorporate strengths-basedassessment approaches, and the tribes evaluatedmany measurement instruments for use intheir communities. The unit of attention in theseinstruments is the family and/or the child. Thefollowing list 8 of instruments has both deficitsand strengths listed as variables. Some of themeasurement instruments were identified forutilization in the tribal programs that were partof the evaluation:17

1. Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale(BERS; Epstein & Shama, 1998)2. The Community Readiness Survey (Beebe,1998)3. McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD;Family Assessment Device, Version 3, 1982)4. Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach,1991a)5. Youth Self Report (YSR; Achenbach, 1991b)6. Family Resource Scale (FRS; Dunst & Leet,1987).(Pam Le Master, University of Colorado Healthand Science Center, personal communication,August 21, 2002).While proponents for the strengths perspectivegenerally disapprove of using measurements withpre-designed categories to analyze behaviorbecause this may limit the number of strengths inthe child or family environment, Koren, DeChillo,and Friesen (1992) and Gilgun (1999) are seekingto develop measurements from more of astrengths perspective. Many current standardizedmeasurements are deficit oriented, but this trendis beginning to change with the influence of thestrengths perspective in practice. Early (2001)has stated that “measurement instruments doexist that are at least neutral or even positive instance” (p. 225). The article lists potentialstrengths measurements for assessment of bothfamilies and children in many settings: “schoolsocial work, early intervention, child welfare, andmental health” (Early, 2001, p. 226).Some of the instruments discussed by Early(2001) for family assessment are the FamilySupport Scale (FSS; Dunst et al., 1984); theFamily Resource Scale (FRS; Dunst & Leet,1987); Supporting and Strengthening Families(Dunst, Trivette & Deal, 1994); and the FamilyEmpowerment Scale (FES; Koren, et al., 1992).Two of the instruments discussed (Early, 2001)for child assessment are the Behavioral andEmotional Rating Scale (BERS; Epstein &Sharma, 1998); and the Social Skills RatingSystem (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott, 1990). Early(2001) stated that, “of the 12 instruments identifiedand described [in her article], five are fromthe explicit strengths perspective (FSS, FRS,FFSS, 9 FES, and BERS). These instruments areclearly consistent with practice from a strengthsperspective” (p. 228).Another instrument related to the assessment ofchildren’s strengths is titled California HealthyKids Survey-Resilience Module, CHKS, whichwas sponsored by California’s Department ofEducation (WestED, 2000). The survey consistsof the following:68 items that tap 19 developmentalstrengths or assets that research hasfound to be associated with positive youthdevelopment and protection from health-18

isk behaviors. Both externally-situatedstrengths (e.g., the presence of caringrelationships, high expectations, andopportunities to participate in meaningfulactivities), and internally-situated strengths(e.g., social competence, autonomy, senseof meaning, and purpose) are representedin the CHKS-Resilience Module. (Rhee etal., 2002, 13) 10Trying to select a standardized measurement forassessment of families and/or children is fraughtwith many problems, some involving cultural sensitivityand cultural appropriateness (Dana, 1993).Many instruments have various cultural biasesand assumptions embedded within their psychometricfoundations. The potential standardizedinstruments mentioned here should be reviewedby tribal groups for applicability to their ownunique tribal and cultural environments. Most ofthese instruments have been validated for thedominant culture, and few, if any, have questionsspecific to American Indian children in their ownenvironment. The Denver Indian Family ResourceCenter 11 has been developing a strengths-orientedinstrument 12 to assess urban American Indianfamilies in Colorado that is currently being pilotedin the Denver community. These projects canprovide a building block for addressing wellbeingindicators from a strengths perspective fortribal people.19

Proposed Model to CompareHuman Well-Being ConceptsA model is proposed here that portrays twoviews of human well-being that influence thedevelopment of well-being indicators for childrenand youth. This model is based on the ecologicaltheory (Hepworth, Rooney, & Larson, 1997), theperson in the environment perspective (Kemp,Whittaker, & Tracey, 1997), and symbolic interaction(Blumer, 1993). These theories provide aframework from the behavioral and social sciencescontext to orient one’s thinking andassumptions about the proposed model.The Two Views of Well-Being Model is illustratedin Figure 1. Human well-being is separated intotwo major components: the compartmentalizedworldview and the relational worldview. 13 Thesetwo views of human well-being are opposite infocus: one favors the individual in an individualisticsociety (Western world), and the other favorsthe group in a collective tribal society (Indigenousworld). Different cultural norms, beliefs, societalvalues, and assumptions support each of thetwo worldviews.Using the compartmentalized worldview (basedon a Western worldview of how life is conceptualizedand organized), mind, body, and spirit areconsidered to be separate and unique entities. Inthe compartmentalized worldview, there are fourelements: influences from the deficit perspective,orientation towards pathology, a focus on disease,and support for the medical model. Thesefour elements influence how behavior, affect, andcognitive aspects are viewed. The spiritual elementis separated from the other elements and isseen as less important or unrelated.The compartmentalized worldview is linear indirection with time, movement, and conceptsseparated into complete units on their own.These elements create and affect one’s thinkingabout how well-being indicators are defined andcategorized. The deficit perspective is utilized asa mechanism of how to view the behavior of childrenand families. Measurements of social,health, education, employment, and many otherareas of human behavior become the mainsource of societal well-being indicators. Wellbeingindicators are analyzed by national organizations,and these data generate local, state, andfederal reports and documents to evaluate howwell children are doing in our society over time.Examples of the well-being indicators are infantmortality, child death, teenage birth, low birthweight, and children living in poverty. These indicatorsreflect at-risk behaviors that need to beidentified, and eventually this informationbecomes the basis of developing programs toimprove these social and cultural areas. Theseindicators are illustrated in the boxes as separateentities in a linear position. The proposed modelillustrates how the compartmentalized worldviewinfluences human behavior and how this behavioris described and organized.20

These two views of human well-being areopposite in focus; one favors the individual inan individualistic society and the other favors thegroup in a collective tribal society. Different culturalnorms, beliefs, societal values, and assumptionssupport each model’s perspective. The viewof life of Native Americans is shared by manyIndigenous people throughout the world becauseof common values such as the importance of theextended family, the meaning of land, and spiritualelements.22

FIGURE 1. Two Views of Human Well-Being Model23

Research MethodsIn order to base these proposed ideas and conceptsin the real world empirically, the researcherexamined the construct of Native Americanstrengths within a broad context through variousresearch methods. These included techniquesfrom both quantitative and qualitative methods.Although secondary data were used, theresearcher utilized a logical and systematic formatin working with the information. Some principlesof quantitative research were utilized; forexample, the researcher summarized the frequenciesof strengths in the review of documentsin tabular form. However, the qualitative method(Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was the most applicableto the research project as a whole. Little if anythinghas been written about this topic and sincethere is a lack of theory and/or previous researchon this topic, the qualitative method was implementedin an informal manner.The principles of content analysis (Krippendorff,1980) were used in the process of documentevaluation. Twenty-two documents 14 wereselected for review from the social sciences literature.The selection process included choosingand reviewing documents about NativeAmericans on various topics and identifying thevarious strengths presented in each document.In general, searching for specific strengths inNative American–focused documents is verycomplex and difficult to accomplish for thefollowing reasons: documents are not summarizedin one source; definitions of strengths areoften not clear or not present at all; documentsare written about different topics; and each tribeand nation has different norms, values, languages,and cultures, and offers many viewpointsabout its worldview highlighting its ownspecific strengths. In order to fully evaluate referencesto Native American strengths, one wouldhave to read all documents to identify and synthesizethe specific strengths in the article.A major issue in qualitative research is theprocess of understanding what is referred to assubjective reality (Creswell, 1994) as opposed toobjective reality. A major principle in qualitativeresearch is to use the researcher as “a primarydata collection instrument” (Creswell, 1994, p.163). Therefore, there is a conscious effort toinclude the researcher’s own experiences, ideas,personal knowledge, and judgment within theprocess of data collection, analysis, and evaluationin the research project (Patton, 1980; Denzin& Lincoln, 1994; Creswell, 1998). This processwas used in this research project when theresearcher utilized her own professional experiences(social work and education), personalexperiences, and judgment as a lens to evaluatethe documents.The researcher is biracial and bicultural (halfNavajo and half White), was born on the Navajo24

eservation, is an enrolled member of the NavajoNation, and has a large extended family livingboth on and off the reservation. She has about30 years of experience as a social worker andthree years of direct experience with research onNative American well-being indicators. Residingin Flagstaff, Arizona, in a “border town” communitynear the boundaries of the Navajo and HopiNations in northern Arizona, she also has knowledgeand practice experience with AmericanIndians/Alaska Natives and works as an educatorwith American Indian undergraduate and graduatesocial work students. In addition, she conductedher dissertation on the ethnic identity ofyoung Navajo women living off the reservation.As is commonly done in qualitative research, allof these personal and professional experienceswere utilized to filter the documents.Data CollectionThe selection of data that are purposeful inaddressing the research question is important.Documents such as professional articles andbook chapters were selected for review; theyprovided the narrative, words, or concepts foranalysis. In qualitative research, the production of“rich description” is one of the primary goals. Thedocuments selected present the “reality” ofNative American life, beliefs, values, worldviews,and cultural norms. The positive aspects ofselecting professional articles are that they arein the public domain and are free to the user. Thelanguage is accessible, and the method savesthe time and expense of transcription (Creswell,1994).Whenever possible, documents written by NativeAmerican authors who are considered well-publishedscholars in their disciplines were selectedfor this review. Some of the authors were chosento indicate their own “lived-experience” of beinga Native American or having experiences in theirown tribal culture. Of course, not all of theauthors are Native American, but many havewritten and worked with Native individuals, families,groups, and communities.Two primary processes that influence qualitativeresearch are the “reduction” of data and the“interpretation” of material (Marshall & Rossman,1998, p. 114, cited in Creswell, 1994, p. 154).As Creswell (1994) stated that, “data analysisrequires that the researcher be comfortable withdeveloping categories and making comparisonsand contrasts” (p. 153). Creswell (1994) statedthat “the researcher takes a voluminous amountof information and reduces it to certain patterns,categories, or themes and then interprets thisinformation by using some schema” (p. 154).This research project follows these basic tenets.The analysis process utilized in the evaluationof the documents consisted of the followingfour steps:25

STEP 1: The researcher read the documentsand had in mind the following questions:“What is the document about? Whattribal group is the document focusing on?What strength is being described? What isthe meaning of this strength to theresearcher? What language is used todescribe the strength? What examplesof strengths are presented in the article?Is the word ‘strength’ defined bythe author?”STEP 2: The researcher reflected on thesedocuments and considered what wasbeing stated; she took an inclusiveapproach to reviewing the exact words,concepts, terms, examples, and behaviorsdiscussed in each document to determinewhat strength was being discussed.STEP 3: The researcher listed the strengthsand inserted these strengths into a matrixformat. The researcher selected a matrixto display the information in order tosystematically show the reader therelationship between the author of the articleand the identified strength(s) discussedin the document. The matrix consists ofrows and columns that revealed thedata. 15STEP 4: The final step was to review thelist of strengths as a whole to determinethe frequency, category, and/or themeeach strength would logically fit into incomparison to the others.Overview of SampleThere were 22 documents 16 selected for reviewfor this research project. Six of the authors wereNative American, nine were non-Native, and fourwere of unknown ethnicity. The dates of publicationranged from 1980 to 2002. The primaryresearch method used by the authors wasFI G U R E2. TY P E SO F RE S E A R C HME T H O D SUS E D(N= 2 2 )Qualitative 18%Descriptive 59%Quantitative 23%26

Discussion of SampleThe majority of the selected documents werewritten by non-Native authors (n = 9), and sixwere written by Native American authors. Thetime span covered by the documents was 1980to 2002, with the majority of the documents writtenafter 2000 (n = 11). The most commonre s e a rch methodologies selected were descriptive(n=13), then quantitative (n=5), and finally qualitadescriptive(n = 13; see Figure 2), and the typeof publication most frequently reviewed wasan article (n = 10; see Figure 3).A variety of specific tribal groups were discussedin the 22 articles, including Chippewa (n=3),Navajo (n=3), Lakota (n=3), and Apache, Omaha,Ottawa, Kiowa, Yaqui, Pima-Maricopa, andPueblo (each n=1). Figure 4 depicts the geographicareas represented in the documents.FI G U R E3. TY P E O F PU B L I C AT I O NRE V I E W E D(N = 22)Newspaper1Informal Document2Dissertation4Book Chapter5Article10Number of DocumentsFI G U R E4. GE O G R A P H I CAR E A RE P R E S E N T E D(N= 2 2 )Great Basin1Plains6Unknown7Southwest8Number of Documents27

tive (n=4). The type of publications varied from professionalarticles (n=10), book chapters (n=5), disse rtations (n=4), informal article (n=2), and newspaper(n=1). The tribal group discussed varied: generic(n=9), Chippewa (n=3), Navajo (n=3), Lakota(n=2), and several tribes following. There were twotribal groups that were considered unknown. Themost common geographic area represented wasthe Southwest (n=8), Plains (n= 6), and unknown(n=7). The average number of strengths identifiedby the 17 authors was 2.47. The range was from1 to 16 strengths identified by the authors.Native American Strengths IdentifiedA list of 42 strengths was identified after the evaluationof the 22 documents. Table 1 lists the42 strengths.The researcher calculated the frequency ofoccurrence of each strength on the matrix, andthe top three strengths (extended family, spirituality,and social connections) became the foundationof the proposed Three Domains of NativeAmerican Well-Being Indicators Model, which isdiscussed later in this report.28

TABLE 1. NATIVE AMERICAN STRENGTHS IDENTIFIED(These strengths are not listed in any priority.)• bicultural identity• tribal identity• extended family• spirituality• social connections• school• non-traditional cultural orientation• childcare customs• language• view of children• tribal affiliation• dreams• traditions• cultural identity• community• stories• resistance• sovereignty• separation• tribal colleges• suspicion/mistrust• intertribal celebrations• kinship and mutual assistance• healing practices• humor• political activism• doing helping style• reciprocity• number of children• personal relationships• respect• optimism• ritual• generosity• role of mother• overcoming trauma• land• return to the reservation• group orientation• adaptation• relational• interdependency29

FindingsThe findings are presented according to theresearch principles used to complete theresearch project (i.e., qualitative and quantitativemethods).Qualitative FindingsAfter reading about the strengths presented ineach selected document, the researcher beganto group the 42 strengths into various themes,categories, and patterns. Grouping was accomplishedmanually with the use of 3 x 5 indexcards. The researcher placed the name of eachstrength on an individual card and began collapsingthe 42 strengths into broad thematic areasand concepts. These themes are only examplesof what may evolve after merging individualstrengths into various thematic categories. Eachresearcher may organize the strengths into differentthemes, but these proposed themes evolvedfrom this particular research project. After reviewingand reflecting on the 42 strengths, theresearcher developed 10 themes. Figure 5depicts the themes that evolved from thisprocess.30

FIGURE 5. THEMES OF NATIVE AMERICAN STRENGTHSPOWER OF THE GROUPI M P O RTANCE OFS P I R I T U A L I T Y• Spirituality• Ritual• Dreams• Healing Practices• IntertribalCelebrations• Extended Family• Group Orientation• Relational• Community• Kinship & MutualAssistance• Doing Helping Style• Interdependency• Reciprocity• Personal Relationships• Social ConnectionsRELEVANCE OFIDENTITY• Cultural Identity• Tribal Identity• Bicultural Identity• Non-traditionalCultural OrientationPOLITICAL RELAT I O N S H I P STHE NEXT GENERATION• View of Children• Number of Children• Childcare Customs• Role of MotherOUR VALUES• Optimism• Generosity• RespectEDUCATION• School• Tribal CollegesHOW DO WE DO IT?• Humor• Adaptation• Traditions• Suspicion/Mistrust• Separation• Overcoming Trauma• Returning to theReservation• Tribal Affiliation• Resistance• Political Activism• SovereigntyOUR VOICE• Language• StoriesENVIRONMENT• Land31

These 10 themes have the potential to be furtherclustered into fewer numbers of themes. Theycan also be the source of discussions with tribesabout comparing their own strengths to this listof proposed themes. In addition, they overlapwith many of the entities in the relational worldviewin the Two Views of Human Well-BeingModel discussed earlier in the paper.Quantitative FindingsThe frequency with which each individualstrength appeared in the matrix was counted.The following eight identified strengths appearedmost frequently: extended family, spirituality,social connections, cultural identity, childcarecustoms, traditions, stories, and kinship andmutual assistance. The extended family (n=16)was, by far, the most common strength discussedby the authors. Following extended familywere spirituality and social connections (n= 7),with a range of nine between these twostrengths and extended family. Cultural identity,listed six times in the matrix, was next. Childcarecustoms, traditions, stories, and kinship andmutual assistance (n= 4) were next in terms offrequency of mention. Table 2 illustrates the identifiedstrengths and their frequency of mention inthe 22 documents.Table 2 also provides evidence to support thedevelopment of the Three Domains of NativeAmerican Well-Being Indicators Model. This proposedmodel does not eliminate the importanceof other characteristics of Native well-being, butit offers the reader a locus of attention. By listingTABLE 2. IDENTIFIED STRENGTH AND FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCENAME OF STRENGTHFREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCEExtended family 16Spirituality 7Social connections 7Cultural identity 6Childcare customs 4Traditions 4Stories 4Kinship and mutual assistance 432

the most important strengths, the reader can seewhat is considered important to Native Americanindividuals, families, and tribes. We can find similardomains in other multicultural settings, but thespecific behaviors may be different in how theyare expressed in the Native American tribes andcultures. These proposed domains are interrelated,cyclical, timeless, and not considered separateentities as expressed in the relationalworldview. The proposed three domains ofNative American well-being indicators are (1)helping each other (social connections); (2) groupbelonging (extended family, clan, tribe, and community);and (3) spiritual belief system andpractices (rituals and ceremonies). These threedomains are constructed into a model depictedin Figure 6.FIGURE 6. DOMAINS OF NATIVE AMERICAN WELL-BEING FACTORS33

The suggested three domains of Native Americanwell-being indicators are specific to tribal groups,but they do have some commonalities with thestrength literature in the dominant culture as similarindicators can be applied to assessment withclient systems (Cowger, 1994; Graybeal, 2001).Specific strength-related behaviors are suggestedfor each of the three domains. Domain One:Helping Each Other includes eight strength-relatedbehaviors; Domain Two: Group Belongingincludes 10 strength-related behaviors; andDomain Three: Spiritual Belief System andPractices includes nine strength-related behaviors.This suggested list of 27 (six are subsumedin the bulleted list) strength-oriented behaviors(potential indicators) makes the conceptualbecome more concrete. This list is not exclusiveand is open for discussion and change. Eachdomain is listed in Figure 7, along with the suggestedbehaviors for each domain.In the proposed Three Domains of NativeAmerican Well-Being Indicators Model, there areseveral suggested practices and behaviorsregarding Native American children and youth; itis a well known fact that Native American tribesare vastly heterogeneous and have different ideasabout what is considered either traditional ornon-traditional in their own communities.Practitioners who decide to utilize this proposedmodel can add or eliminate any of the suggestedbehaviors to tailor it to their own tribal community.Deciding about specific behaviors is entirelyleft up to tribal individuals and programs.34

FIGURE 7. DOMAINS AND SUGGESTED BEHAVIORSDOMAIN 1: HELPING EACH OTHER• Practices sharing work (helping with childcare )and living (preparation of food for family)• Practices caring for others (going shopping,getting wood, getting water, going to the tradingpost for mail, going with elders to public serv i c e s ,p roviding transportation, monetary exchange,p roviding labor and childcare to others)• P a rticipates in life-cycle events (birthing, naming,first laugh, puberty rituals, healing, wedding,and end-of-life ceremonies); caring for childrenin the family• P a rticipates in “traditional lifestyle” behavior(use of language, dressing in traditionalclothing, singing)• P a rticipates in pow-wows (drumming groups andworking in pow-wow with family); visiting grandpa rents on the re s e rv a t i o n• P a rticipates in artistic behavior (painting,drawing, and making jewelry and pottery )DOMAIN 2: GROUP BELONGING• States membership in the group (NativeAmerican, tribe, clan identification)• Has tribal membership and/or is enrolled inhis/her tribe using both informal and formalmechanisms (Certificate of Indian Blood,Census Number, or other forms of membershipand identification)• States his/her clan affiliation and family history• Resides with his/her extended family, belongsto a running group (tribal or other), or worksfor a tribal organization• Participates in American Indian youthorganizations• Attends pow-wows, tribal ceremonies,and is recognized as being part of a ritualfor his or her community• Participates in “Miss Native American” events• Leads and/or is a member of Native clubsand organizations (nationally and locally)DOMAIN 3: SPIRITUAL BELIEF SYSTEM AND PRACTICES• Knows traditional Native American songs and dances• Practices his/her traditional religion and is learningfrom a traditional person (language, songs, traditions)• Has prayer and song as part of his/her life andparticipates in Native American Church orother tribally recognized religion• Is recognized as a potential healerand medicine person• Has participated in telling stories, drumming,dancing, and singing• Knows his/her Native language• P a rticipates in sweat lodge ceremonies, fasting,vision quests, etc.35

Verification of FindingsTo increase the validity and credibility of thep roposed T h ree Domains of Native American We l l -Being Indicators Model, the proposed behaviorsw e re reviewed for verification purposes. The verificationprocess was accomplished by comparingand contrasting the proposed behaviors with twoother models. The two models selected for comparisonpurposes were the Search Institute’s 40Developmental Assets Model (Search Institute,2002) and the Five Life Domains (Bowers-Andre w s& Ben-Arieh, 1999). These two models werediscussed earlier in the paper. Table 3 illustratesthe comparison of the Native American well-beingbehaviors with the Search Institute framework, andTable 4 compares the Native American well-beingbehaviors with the Five Life Domains.36

Comparison With Other FrameworksComparison 1The Search Institute’s 40 Developmental AssetsModel is divided into two major components:External Assets and Internal Assets. 17 TheThree Domains of Native American Well-BeingIndicators Model proposed in this paper includeDomain One: Helping Each Other; Domain Two:Group Belonging; and Domain Three: SpiritualBelief System. There are 27 proposed strengthrelatedbehaviors within these three domains.The following section illustrates the placementof individual behaviors from the proposedThree Domains of Native American Well-BeingIndicators Model within the Search Institute’s40 Developmental Assets Model.EXTERNAL ASSETS IDENTIFIED BYTHE SEARCH INSTITUTEProposed Three Domains of Native AmericanWell-Being Indicators Model Category:Helping Each OtherCharacteristics1. Practices sharing work and living2. Practices caring for others3. Participates in life-cycle events4. Cares for children in the family5. Visits grandparents on the reservationProposed Three Domains of Native AmericanWell-Being Indicators Model Category:Group BelongingCharacteristics6. Resides with extended familyINTERNAL ASSETS IDENTIFIED BYTHE SEARCH INSTITUTEProposed Three Domains of Native AmericanWell-Being Indicators Model Category:Helping Each OtherCharacteristics1. Participates in artistic behavior2. Participates in traditional lifestyle behavior3. Participates in pow-wowsProposed Three Domains of Native AmericanWell-Being Indicators Model Category:Group BelongingCharacteristics4. States he/she is part of the group5. Has tribal membership and/or is enrolledin tribe using both informal and formalmechanisms6. States clan affiliation and family history7. Belongs to a running group8. Works for a tribal organization37

9. Participates in American Indianyouth organization10.Attends pow-wows and tribal ceremoniesand is recognized as a part of thecommunity ritual11.Participates in Miss Native Americanevents12.Participates as a leader and/or memberof Native clubs and organizationsProposed Three Domains of Native AmericanWell-Being Indicators Model Category:Spiritual Beliefs13.Knows traditional Nativesongs and dances14.Practices traditional religion15.Is learning from a traditional person16.Uses prayer and song as part of his/her life17.Participates in Native American Churchor other tribally recognized religion18.Is recognized as potential healer andmedicine person19.Participates in telling stories, drumming,dancing, and singing20.Knows Native language21.Participates in sweat lodge ceremonies,fasting, visions quests, etc.Table 3 provides an analysis of the ThreeDomains of Native American Well-BeingIndicators Model in comparison with the 40Developmental Assets Model developed by theSearch Institute. Six of the indicators from thethree domains are considered external assets,and 21 are considered internal assets.TABLE 3. THREE DOMAINS OF NATIVE AMERICANWELL-BEING INDICATORS MODEL COMPARED WITHTHE SEARCH INSTITUTE FRAMEWORKBEHAVIORSFREQUENCYExternal 6Internal 21Total 2738

Comparison 2The Five Life Domains include social connections,civil life skills, personal life skills, safety andphysical status, and children’s subculture(Bowers-Andrews & Ben-Arieh, 1999). TheThree Domains of Native American Well-BeingIndicators Model proposed in this paper areDomain One: Helping Each Other; Domain Two:Group Belonging, and Domain Three: SpiritualBelief System. There are 27 proposed strengthrelatedbehaviors within these three domains.The following section indicates the specificFive Life Domains and which behaviors from theThree Domains Model match these categories.FIVE LIFE DOMAINS CATEGORY:SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESSProposed Three Domains of Native AmericanWell-Being Indicators Model Category:Helping Each OtherCharacteristics1. Participates in life-cycle events2. Practices caring for others3. Cares for children in family4. Visits grandparents on the reservationProposed Three Domains of Native AmericanWell-Being Indicators Model Category:Group BelongingCharacteristics1. States he/she is part of the group2. States clan affiliation and family history3. Resides with his/her extended familyFIVE LIFE DOMAINS CATEGORY:CIVIL LIFE SKILLSProposed Three Domains of Native AmericanWell-Being Indicators Model Category:Helping Each Other1. Participates in traditional lifestyle behavior2. Participates in pow-wows3. Participates in artistic behaviorProposed Three Domains of Native AmericanWell-Being Indicators Model Category:Group Belonging1. Participates in American Indianyouth organizations2. Attends pow-wows and tribalceremonies and is recognized aspart of a community ritual3. Participates in Miss Native Americanevents4. Is a leader and/or member of Nativeclubs and organizations5. Has tribal membership and/or isenrolled in tribe using informal andformal mechanisms39

Proposed Three Domains of Native AmericanWell-Being Indicators Model Category:Spiritual Beliefs1. Knows traditional Native songsand dances2. Practices traditional religion3. Is learning from a traditional person4. Uses prayer and song as part of life5. Participates in Native American Churchor other tribally recognized religion6. Is recognized as potential healerand medicine person7. Participates in telling stories,drumming, dancing, and singing8. Knows Native language9. Participates in sweat lodge ceremonies,fasting, and vision questFIVE LIFE DOMAINS CATEGORY:PERSONAL LIFE SKILLSProposed Three Domains of Native AmericanWell-Being Indicators Model Category:Helping Each Other1. Practices sharing work and livingProposed Three Domains of Native AmericanWell-Being Indicators Model Category: GroupBelonging1. Works for a tribal organizationFIVE LIFE DOMAINS CATEGORY:SAFETY AND PHYSICAL STATUS1. Belongs to a running groupFIVE LIFE DOMAINS CATEGORY:CHILDREN’S SUBCULTURENone in this category40

Table 4 provides an analysis of the ThreeDomains of Native American Well-BeingIndicators Model in comparison with the Five LifeDomains. Each of the Five Life Domains is listed,and the number of indicators from the ThreeDomains Model is shown.The analysis of the Three Domains of NativeAmerican Well-Being Indicators Model in comparisonwith the Five Life Domains indicates thatcivil life skills were essential to Native Americans(n = 17) with social connections following in orderof importance (n = 7). It was surprising that noneof the Three Domains of Native American Well-Being Indicators Model behaviors were includedin children’s subculture. This analysis maychange based on another person’s evaluationof the proposed indicators.This serves as a beginning attempt to compareindicators and subcategories with those of better-knownmodels. There were some commoncharacteristics but not always. These two frameworks(40 Developmental Assets and Five LifeDomains) are based on assumptions from thecompartmentalized worldview; therefore, classifyingspiritual issues was more difficult. The comparisonbetween the two asset models presentsevidence that there is a need for indicators basedon the relational worldview; hence, the developmentof the Three Domains of Native AmericanWell-Being Indicators Model discussed earlierin this paper.TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF COMPARISON BETWEEN THREE DOMAINS OFNATIVE AMERICAN WELL-BEING INDICATORS MODEL AND FIVE LIFEDOMAINS (BOWER-ANDREWS & BEN-ARIEH, 1999).NAME OF LIFE DOMAINFREQUENCY OF BEHAVIORSSocial connections 7Civil life skills 17Personal life skills 2Safety and physical status 1Children’s subculture 0Total 2741

Strengths and Limitations of the ResearchStrengths• The gap in the literature regarding NativeAmerican strengths is addressed.• Forty-two Native American strengths arepresented for review and discussion withtribes and communities.• A model titled Two Views of HumanWell-Being is developed.• A model titled Three Domains of NativeAmerican Well-Being Indicators is developed.• Twenty-seven Native American strengthorientedwell-being indicators are proposed.• Examples of measurements for the assessmentof the strengths perspective aresuggested.• Native American well-being indicators arecompared and contrasted with two assetmodels: Search Institute’s 40 DevelopmentalAssets (Search Institute, 2002) and the FiveLife Domains (Bowers-Andrews & Ben-Arieh,1999).• Recommendations for future research, policy,and practice are provided.Limitations• The use of secondary analysis of documentsmay have limited the collection and analysisof American Indian/Alaska Native strengths.Primary data collection is preferred, but itwould require significant time, staff, andresources that are beyond the scope, budget,and time constraints of this project.• Analyzing 22 documents is limiting, as thereare hundreds of documents about AmericanIndians and Alaska Natives, as well as additionalsources of narrative such as interviewingindividuals, reading poems, novels,stories, and personal journals, listening tooral histories and songs, and observingrituals, and ceremonies.• Professional social work knowledge, values,and skills may have prevented the review ofthe strengths from other perspectives, thusgiving the review a professional bias.• Due to the heterogeneity of AmericanIndian/Alaska Native tribes, villages, and/orcorporations, the findings of this report do notdescribe one tribe, village, and/or corporation.The ability to generalize this report is limiteddue to the small sample size (n: 22) ofreviewed documents.42

RecommendationsResearchResearch studies provide the empirically-basedevidence for policymakers to design, modify,eliminate, and/or change policies. The resultsof research projects provide health and humanservices policymakers with data to make policiesand/or programs more efficient, timely, costeffective,and culturally relevant. Historically,research has mainly benefited researchers andnot the community itself. Native Americans arechanging this pattern by conducting researchthemselves in their own tribal communities withdirect benefits to their tribes and communities.NICWA, in cooperation with Casey FamilyPrograms, is changing this pattern to benefittribes in their own environments as demonstratedby the publication of two previous reports(Goodluck & Willeto, 2000, 2001).While there are several research methodologiesto select from, this study utilized the qualitativemethod to organize the study. The professionalliterature is only one avenue to ascertain examplesof Native American strengths forchildren and youth. The most relevant sourceof information is the people themselves in theirown natural environments. To help improve theconduct of research with tribal communities,future research-oriented projects could includethe following:• Seek out other sources of data presented inother narrative formats such as songs, shortstories, novels, poetry, and oral histories thatcan be evaluated for examples of NativeAmerican strengths.• Develop consistent definitions of termssuch as “strengths” and “well-being” that areaccepted by many tribal entities in order toensure consistent future research.• Assist tribes in designing their own researchstudies and increase the validity of thesestudies by utilizing quantitative researchmethods in addition to qualitative methods.• Considering that there are 558 tribal entitiesin the United States, it is not practical to haveevery tribe conduct research on its ownstrengths. Therefore, it is suggested thatthree to five tribes take the lead on researchingthis topic.• Facilitate tribal efforts to design and implementtribal focus groups to discuss the findingspresented in this study and to comparetheir own tribal strengths with the conceptsaddressed here.• Discuss the model proposed in this studywith tribes to determine if they are appropriateand/or applicable to that specific tribe. Some43

potential questions are as follows: Are thesethemes and indicators relevant to your owntribe or nation? If so, how? If not, how arethey different? Exploring these questions canlead to a dialog on this topic.• Present these proposed strength indicatorsand models at national, regional, and localconferences and workshops in order toincrease the dissemination of the information.PolicyNational entities such as federal, state, and tribalgovernments are seeking current data to supporttheir requests for changes in social and economicpolicies. In the past, the results from deficit-orientedevaluations supported their decisions forthe development of programs. It is the premiseof this report that we can develop programs fromknowing about the strengths of American Indiansand Alaska Natives. Policies that supportstrengths-oriented programs can then be developed.For example, if we know from empiricallybasedresearch that speaking a Native languageis considered a strength by a particular tribe, wecan develop programs to foster the teaching ofthat language to tribal children and youth.A recent example of focusing on problems ratherthan strengths is discussed in the following story.The Navajo Nation held a community-wide meetingin a small, rural Navajo community with triballeaders, social services, health care, and criminaljustice providers, parents, elders, youths, andmany others to address the recent trend ofyoung males committing murder against otheryoung males in the community. During the fivehourmeeting the community discussed all of thecommunity problems that needed to be solvedand actions that needed to be taken: reducedrinking and alcoholism; increase job opportunities;build more treatment institutions; improveroad conditions; lower the poverty rate; andmany more. Individuals viewed their own communitythrough the lens of “the problem” andused the deficit approach as a foundation fortheir discussion.Another approach to this community situationmay be to have the same group get together andto reframe the problem by identifying all of theindividual and community strengths. Using theseidentified strengths, programs could be developedto enhance these community and individualstrengths. This is not a simple formula because ittakes time to refocus and listen from a differentpoint of view and to revamp current policies tofoster this change. There are examples of communitiesmaking these changes in policy andpractice, as discussed earlier in this paper. Forexample, K’e program supports the extendedfamily system and structure to build from traditionalvalues and practices to improve familiesliving in today’s world.44

Policy change usually occurs after a definable crisisoccurs and is described with factual data.Then members of the legislature want to improvethe social and/or economic situation of the community.In this situation, the strengths approachrequires building policy based on positive assets.Instead of being reactive to the problem, thisapproach is proactive to the communityand its members.One cannot simply transport policies from othercommunities; each community or tribe must seekto identify its own strengths and build these intopolicies to prevent harm or minimize riskybehaviors. An example of a strength orientedpolicy is the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978(P.L. 95-608), which states that the extendedfamily is the core of child raising in Nativecommunities and makes every effort to haveAmerican Indian/Alaska Native children be raisedin their own tribal communities. Unfortunately, thefunding for this policy is not adequate for it to beas successful as it could be.PracticeThe proposed Three Domains of Native AmericanWell-Being Indicators Model described in thispaper can be utilized by programs to affect individualand community change. Social connectionsbetween family members can be the basisof enhancing social networks between tribalmembers; both informal and formal networkscan be supported by seeking their strengths andpositive behaviors. Life skills can be taught thathighlight the strengths of children and youth. TheSearch Institute has several programs that focuson building both external and internal strengthsfor individuals, families, and communities. Theseresources are available to tribal program planners;however, the planner must be careful not totake an outside program and simply try to adaptit to the tribal environment. Programs must bedeveloped from the inside out and from tribalideas and strengths to work effectively withineach community. This takes creativity, innovation,and a sense of the community’s real needs.Tribes are going through massive social, economic,and cultural changes; therefore, plannershave to be flexible and open to hearing from theirown members regarding a new design of programsbased on assets and strengths, ratherthan going along with the status quo.Social marketing techniques may have to occurprior to establishing new programs. Changingattitudes and beliefs from the deficit approach tothe strengths perspective will take specializedskills such as reframing the picture, as well asknowledge, courage, compassion, and patience.Preparing the community for change takes energy,resources, and a team approach. There is aresource called the Community Toolbox 18 thatcan assist communities with community change,advocacy, and social marketing. This resource45

has numerous strategies, ideas, templates, andpractical information to assist practitioners withmaking changes in their own communities.Another idea is to write a grant to conduct asmall pilot program to facilitate using strengths inprogram development. Small programs can showthe community the possibilities and opportunitiesto reframe their own community focus from theproblem to the strengths perspective.Tribes can also utilize ideas from the focusgroups that identify strengths within the tribe,individual, or community as the foundation ofstrengths-focused change and program delivery.Preventative, pro-social, and community-basedprograms can show members of the communitythe variety of rich resources their community haswithin its own environment.One of the premises at the beginning of thispaper is that, in order to survive, tribal groups,communities, and individuals have had and usedstrengths; it is time for us as a people to makethose strengths explicit to others so we can buildand grow from our own strengths and not continueto be seen as “the problem” or as victims.The wellness and health movement within manytribes is evidence that this process is alreadyoccurring. We can restructure our programs tofocus on strengths and build upon our own abilitiesto thrive and grow in changing times. If wecan identify our strengths, we can develop programsthat enhance these individual and communitystrengths. Identifying emotional, health,and social well-being indicators for NativeAmerican children and youth is taking the firststep in developing tribally-based data to supportthe developing Native American practice models.46

ConclusionThis project started because previous well-beingliterature for children and youth has concentratedon describing well-being indicators from a deficitviewpoint. Due to historical, social, and culturalfactors, the strengths of Native Americans havenot always been made explicit in the literature.This project provides empirical evidence to supportthe development of strengths from a NativeAmerican perspective and complements previouswell-being indicator research conducted in thisarea by providing a conceptual and concreteframework to discuss and compare strengthswith tribal entities across the country. This is anexploratory investigation into a fairly new area,and further research is recommended. It is thehope of this researcher that in the near future,tribal communities can develop their own wellbeingindicators from a strengths perspective intandem with the general well-being indicators asdiscussed in previous literature (Goodluck &Willeto, 2000, 2001).47

ReferencesAber, J. L., & Jones, S. (1995). Indicators of positive development in early childhood: Improving conceptsand measures. In Indicators of children’s well-being (Conference Papers, Vol. III). Madison:University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty (Special Report Series, 60c).Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). Manual for the youth self-report and 1991 profile. Burlington: University ofVermont, Department of Psychiatry.Achenbach, T. M. (1991b). Integrative guide to the 1991 CBCL/4-18, YSR, and TRF profiles. Burlington:University of Vermont, Department of Psychology.American Psychiatric Association [APA]. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4thed.). Washington, DC: Author.Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2000). Kids count data book 2000: State profiles of child well-being.Baltimore, MD: Author.Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2001). Kids count data book 2001: State profiles of child well-being.Baltimore, MD: Author.Beebe, T. J. (1998). The community readiness survey: Development and initial validation. Unpublishedmanuscript.Blumer, H. (1993). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.Bowers-Andrews, A., & Ben-Arieh, A. (1999). Measuring and monitoring children's well-being across theworld. Social Work, 44 (2), 105–114.Brave Heart, M. Y. & DeBruyn, L. M. (1998). The American Indian holocaust: Healing historical unresolvedgrief. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 8 (2), 56–78.Brown, B. V. (1997). Indicators of children’s well-being: A review of current indicators based on data fromthe federal statistical system. In R. M. Hauser, B. V. Brown, & W. R. Prosser (Eds.), Indicator’s ofchildren’s well-being (pp. 3–35). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Bullerdick, S. (2000). Social connectedness and the relationship to emotional well-being among urbanAmerican Indian youth. Unpublished dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.Children’s Defense Fund. (1999). State of America’s children: 1999. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Children’s Rights Working Group. (1997). Measuring and monitoring the state of the world’s childrenbeyond survival: Children’s rights work group notes for discussion. Notes presented at the SecondInternational Workshop Measuring and Monitoring Children’s Well-Being, Campobasso, Italy.48

Cowger, C. D. (1994). Assessing client strengths: Clinical assessment for client empowerment. SocialWork, 39 (3), 262–269.Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Cross, T. L. (1995). Understanding family resiliency from a relational worldview. In H. L. McCubbin, E. A.Thompson, A. I. Thompson, & J. E. Fromer (Eds.), Resiliency in ethnic minority families: Native andimmigrant American families (Vol. I, pp. 143–158). Madison: University of Wisconsin System.Cross, T., Earle, K., Echo-Hawk Solie, H., & Manness, K. (2000). Cultural strengths and challenges inimplementing a system of care model in American Indian communities (Vol. I). Washington, DC:Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, American Institutes for Research.Dana, R. H. (1993). Multicultural assessment perspectives for professional psychology. Boston, MA: Allynand Bacon.Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.Dunst, C. J., Jenkins, V., & Trivette, C. (1984). Family Support Scale: Reliability and validity. Journal ofIndividual, Family, and Community Wellness, 1, 45–52.Dunst, C. J., & Leet, H. E. (1987). Measuring the adequacy of resources in households with young children.Child: Care, Health and Development, 13, 111–125.Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Deal, A. G. (Eds.). (1994). Supporting and strengthening families, vol. 1:Methods, strategies and practices. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.Duran, B., Duran, E., & Yellow Horse Brave Heart, M. (1998). Native Americans and the trauma of history.In R. Thornton (Ed.), Studying Native America: Problems and prospects (pp. 60–76). Madison:University of Wisconsin Press.Early, T. J. (2001, May/June). Measures for practice with families from a strengths perspective. Families inSociety, 82 (3), 225–232.Early, T. J., & GlenMaye, L. (2000). Valuing families: Social work practice with families from a strengthsperspective. Social Work, 45 (2), 118–130.49

Epstein, M. H., & Sharma, J. (1998). Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale: A strengths-based approachto assessment. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Epstein, N.B., Baldwin, L.M., & Bishop, D.S. (1983). Family Assessment Device (FAD). Journal of Maritaland Family Therapy, 9 (2), 171-180. Macquarie University Psychology Department Test Library.Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (1999). America’s children: Key national indicatorsof well-being, 1999 (Publication No. 065-000-01162-0). Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.Gilgun, J. F. (1999). CASPARS: New tools for assessing client risks and strengths. Families in Society, 80,450–459.Goerge, R., & Lee, J. B. (2001). Monitoring the well-being of children internationally. New York: KluwerAcademic Press. Retrieved month, day, year from http://www.chapin.uchicago.edu/ProjectsGuide/InternationalResearch.htmlGoodluck, C. T., & Willeto, A. A. A. (2000). Native kids 2000: Indian child well-being indicators. Seattle,WA: Casey Family Programs and Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University.Goodluck, C. T., & Willeto, A. A. A. (2001). Native American kids 2001: Indian children’s well-being indicatorsdata book. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs and Flagstaff, AZ: Northern ArizonaUniversity.Graybeal, C. (2001). Strengths-based social work assessment: Transforming the dominant paradigm.Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 82 (3), 233–241.Gresham, F., & Elliott, S. (1990). Social Skills Rating System. Circle Pines, MN: American GuidanceService.Gutierrez, L., Parsons, R., & Cox, D. E. (1998). Empowerment in social work practice: A sourcebook.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Hepworth, D. H., Rooney, R. H., & Larsen, J. A. (1997). Direct social work practice: Theory and skills.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Kemp, S.P., Whittaker, J.K., & Tracey, E. M. (1997). Person-environment practice: The social ecology ofinterpersonal helping (modern applications in social work). New York: Aldine de Gruyter Press.Koren, P. E., DeChillo, N., & Friesen, B. J. (1992). Measuring empowerment in families whose childrenhave emotional disabilities: A brief questionnaire. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37, 305–321.50

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Lewis, R., & Deer, A. (1980). Editorial notes. Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work,61 (8), 522–523.Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.Locke, B., Garrison, R., & Winship, J. (1998). Generalist social work practice: Context, story, and partnerships.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.McQuaide, S. (2000). Women’s resilience at midlife: What is it? How do you mobilize it? In E. Norman(Ed.), Resiliency enhancement: Putting the strengths perspective into social work practice(pp. 70–82). New York: Columbia.Moore, K.A. (1997). Criteria for indicators of child well-being. In R.M. Hauser, B.V. Brown, W.R. Prosser(Eds.), Indicator’s of children’s well-being. (pp. 36-44). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Red Horse, J. (1980). Family structure and value orientation in American Indians. Social Casework: TheJournal of Contemporary Social Work, 61 (8), 462–467.Rhee, S., Furlong, M., Turner, J., & Harari, I. (2002). Making the case for integrating strength-basedperspective in psychoeducational evaluations. (Retrieved October 3, 2002, from http://www.education.ucsb/school-psychology/School-Violence/PDF/csp62001-MJF.htlm).Saleebey, D. (1996). The strengths perspective in social work practice: Extensions and cautions. SocialWork, 41 (3), 296–304.Saleebey, D. (1997). The strengths perspective in social work practice (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.Saleebey, D. (1997). Handout received at a workshop, page unknown.Saleebey, D. (2001). The diagnostic strengths manual. Social Work, 46 (2), 183–187.Sandefur, G. D., Rindfuss, R. R., & Cohen, R. (1996). Changing numbers, changing needs: AmericanIndian demography and public health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Search Institute (2002). 40 Developmental Asset Model. (Retrieved November 23, 2002, fromhttp://www.search-institute.org/assets;forty.htm).State of Alaska. (1998). Helping kids succeed—Alaskan style. Anchorage: Association of AlaskaSchool Boards.51

Unger, S. (1977). The destruction of American Indian families. New York: Association on American IndianAffairs.United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2001). The state of the world’s children 2002. New York:United Nations.Waller, M. A. (2001). Resilience in ecosystemic context: Evolution of the concept. Journal ofOrthopsychiatry, 71 (3), 290–297.Waller, M., Risley-Curtiss, C., Murphy, S., Medill, A., & Moore, G. (1998). Harnessing the positive power oflanguage: American Indian women, a case example. In E.A. Segal & K.M. Kilty (Eds.), Pressingissues of inequality and American Indian communities (pp. 63-8). Haworth Press, Inc.Werner, E., & Smith, R. S. (2001). Journeys from childhood to midlife: Risk, resilience, and recovery.London: Cornell University Press.WestED. (2000). Guidebook for the California healthy kids survey. Can be obtained fromhttp://www.wested.org/hks/guidebk.pdfWieck, A. (1992). Building a strengths perspective for social work. In D. Saleebey (Ed.), The strengthsperspective in social work practice. New York: Longman.Wieck, A., Rapp, C., Sullivan, W. P., & Kisthardt, S. (1998). A strengths perspective for social workpractice. Social Work, 34, 350–354.52

APPENDIX A: MATRIX WITH AUTHORS AND STRENGTHS IDENTIFIED53

REFERENCES FOR DOCUMENTS INCLUDED IN APPENDIX AAbbott, D. & Slater, G. (2000, Spring). Strengths and stresses of Omaha Indian families living on thereservation. Great Plains Research, 10, 145–168.Beauvais, F. (2000). Indian adolescence: opportunity and challenge. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams,Gerald, R., & T.P. Gullotta (Eds.), Adolescent diversity in ethnic, economic, and cultural contexts,(pp. 110–140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Bullerdick, S. K. (2000). Social connectedness and the relationship to emotional well-being among urbanAmerican Indian youth. Unpublished dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.Cross, T. (2001, Fall). Spirituality and mental health: A Native American perspective. Focal Point, 15 (2)22–24: Regional Research Institute for Human Services, Portland State University.Cross, T. (1995). Understanding family resiliency from a relational worldview. In H. L. McCubbin, E. A.Thompson, A. I. Thompson, & J. E. Fromer (Eds.), Resiliency in ethnic minority families: Native andimmigrant American Indian families (Vol. I, pp. 143–158). Madison: University of Wisconsin System.Evans, C. M. (1997). There needs to be somebody: An exploration of the ways Great Basin Indian youthget through difficult times. Unpublished dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.Goodluck, C. (1980). Strength of caring. Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work, 61(8): 519–521.Klassen, H. M. (1996). The development of resiliency in American Indian adolescents. EducationalPsychology. Unpublished dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Lewis, R. (1981). Patterns of strengths of American Indian families. In F. Hoffman (Ed.), The Americanfamily strengths and stresses (pp. 101–106). Isleta, NM: American Indian Social Research andDevelopment Associates.Light, H. K., and Martin, R. E. (1996, October). American Indian families. Journal of American IndianEducation, 26 (1), 1–5.Mail, P. D. (1996). Cultural orientation and positive psychological status as protective factors againstproblem behaviors in Southwestern American Indian adolescents. Unpublished dissertation,University of Maryland, College Park.54

Medill, A. (2000, Fall). Reflections on teenage motherhood: Context and voices of teenage mothers residingin the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian community. Reflections: Narratives of ProfessionalHelping, 24–32.Napoli, M. & Gonzalez-Santin, E. (2001). Intensive home-based and wellness services to Native Americanfamilies living on reservations: A model. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary HumanServices, 82 (3), 315–324.Red Horse, J.G. (1980, October). Family structure and value orientation in American Indians. SocialCasework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work, 61 (8), 462–467.Red Horse, J.G. (1988). Cultural evolution of American Indian families. In C. Jacobs & D. D. Bowles,(Eds)., Ethnicity and race: Critical concepts in social work. Silver Spring, MD: National Associationof Social Workers, 86–102.Rogers, B. (2001. May). A path of healing and wellness for Native families. American Behavioral Scientist,44 (9), 1512–1514.Waller, M., Risley-Curtiss, C., Murphy, S., Medill, A., & Moore, G. (1998). Harnessing the positive power oflanguage: American Indian women, a case example. In E. A. Segal & K. M. Kilty (Eds.), PressingIssues of Inequality and American Indian Communities (pp. 63–81). New York: Haworth Press, Inc.Waller, M. & Yellow Bird, M. (2002). Strengths of First Nations peoples. In D. Saleebey (Ed.), Thestrengths perspective in social work practice. (pp. 48–62). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Waller, M. A. & Patterson, S. (2002). Natural helping and resilience in a Dine (Navajo) community. Familiesin Society: Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 83 (1): 73–84.Waller, M., Okamoto, S. Hibbeler, T., Hibbeler, P., McIntyre, P., McAllen-Walker, R. & Hankerson, A.(2001). The hoop of learning: A holistic, multisystemic model for facilitating educational resilienceamong indigenous students. Journal of Sociology and Social Work, 95–114.Williamson, B. (2002, February). Trujillo: Education is an essential bridge between cultures. NAU Today,6–7.Zimmerman, M. A., Ramirez, J., Washienko, K. M., Walter, B., & Dyer, S. (1998). Enculturation hypothesis:Exploring direct and protective factors among Native American youth. In H. I. McCubbin, E.A.Thompson, A. I. Thompson., & J. E. Fromer (Eds.), Resiliency in Native American and immigrantfamilies (pp. 199–220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.55

56APPENDIX B: EVALUATION OF DOCUMENTS

APPENDIX C: SEARCH INSTITUTE’S EXTERNALAND INTERNAL ASSETSExternal AssetsThe first 20 developmental assets focus on positive experiences that young people receive from the peopleand institutions in their lives. Four categories of external assets are included in the framework:• Support: Young people need to experience support, care, and love from their families, neighbors, andmany others. They need organizations and institutions that provide positive, supportive environments.• Empowerment: Young people need to be valued by their community and have opportunities to contributeto others. For this to occur, they must be safe and feel secure.• Boundaries and expectations: Young people need to know what is expected of them and whetheractivities and behaviors are "in bounds" and "out of bounds."• Constructive use of time: Young people need constructive, enriching opportunities for growththrough creative activities, youth programs, congregational involvement, and quality time at home.Internal AssetsA community's responsibility for its young does not end with the provision of external assets. There needsto be a similar commitment to nurturing the internal qualities that guide choices and create a sense ofcenteredness, purpose, and focus. Indeed, shaping internal dispositions that encourage wise, responsible,and compassionate judgments is particularly important in a society that prizes individualism. Fourcategories of internal assets are included in the framework:• Commitment to learning: Young people need to develop a lifelong commitment to education andlearning.• Positive values: Youth need to develop strong values that guide their choices.• Social competencies: Young people need skills and competencies that equip them to make positivechoices, to build relationships, and to succeed in life.• Positive identity: Young people need a strong sense of their own power, purpose, worth, andpromise.The author retrieved this framework on November 23, 2002, at www.search-institute.org/assets/forty.htm.57

NOTES1 The terms Native American, American Indian/Alaska Native, American Indian, Indian, and First Nationsare used interchangeably throughout the document to refer to the indigenous people of the UnitedStates.2 The term indicator is the broad concept that includes social and behavioral well-being. Specificbehaviors, practices, and other determinants of activity are frequently used as examples for the indicator.3 See their website at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm.4 For an extensive literature review of the strengths perspective refer to the following authors: Wieck(1992); Cowger (1994); Locke, Garrison, & Winship (1998); McQuaide (2000); Graybeal (2001).5 See their website at http://www.search-institute.org/assets/forty.htm. Information was retrievedNovember 23, 2002.6 Former first female chief of her tribe, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.7 A quote from Wilma Mankiller’s lecture at the University of Arizona, shown on C-SPAN on June 1, 2002.8 This list is not comprehensive but a sample of the instruments shared with the researcher.9 FFSS: Family Functioning Style Scale (Trivette, Dunst, Deal, Hamby, & Sexton, 1994).10 See also http://www.education.ucsb/school-psychology/School-Violence/PDF/csp62001-MJF.html.11 Contact the director of the center for information at http://www.difrc.org.12 Contact the Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver, for details on this instrument.13 This proposed model builds upon Cross’s (1995) article, “Understanding Family Resiliency from aRelational Worldview.”14 A list of these authors and articles is provided in the appendix.15 The matrix can be found in Appendix A.16 The evaluation of the documents can be found in Appendix B.17 The list of external and internal assets is located in Appendix C.18 See their website at http://ctb.lsi.ukans.edu.58