The Asset Building Framework in Rural Social Work

Our MSW program at Humboldt State University strictly adheres to the long tradition of practice in social work that focuses on strengths and assets, whether we are talking about individuals, families, neighborhoods or communities. I have learned to use this practice in my internship and strongly believe that it is the most positive thing I can bring to the table in my work. As the authors noted in the text, Rural Social Work: Building and Sustaining Community Assets, we can choose to see the problems facing our communities and become overwhelmed by the depth of despair in our society that is reflected in the individuals, families and communities that we come into contact with on a daily basis in our work. We have another choice though, and that is to see the assets that are available in the systems we work in. It is the choice of seeing the glass half empty, or half full. Seeing the glass half full allows us to tune into the “depth of the human spirit and the richness of the creative process” (Scales & Streeter, 2004). This perception can create a vibrant and enriching reality that is usually missing in the concept of social work in rural communities.
Since most of my family still lives in the rural community that I grew up in, it was refreshing to read about the wide range of strengths and assets that are available in rural communities since I have thought about working in a rural area when I graduate. The assets that are available include the associations people have with each other and the land, family histories that can include many generations of ties between individuals and families, and family and local traditions that connect people.
The authors identify three significant streams of asset building work that have helped to shift the focus in rural social work from deficiencies to assets. The book, Building Community From the Inside Out, by Kretzmann and McKnight, focuses on asset building by “identifying resources and fostering relationships in the community” (Scales et al., 2004). This approach has been established in the Asset-Based Community Development Institute at Northwestern University. Kretzmann and McKnight’s central approach is that every individual has promise, and it is essential to define what that is because the totality of these assets can be used to revitalize a rural area.
A second stream of asset building work is located at the Search Institute in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Search Institute identified forty critical factors necessary for the healthy development of our youth in the belief that healthy communities value healthy children. It is the responsibility of every community to nurture their external experiences like creating supportive environments and clearly stated boundaries. It is also equally important to nurture the internal qualities of each child. This can include helping kids make a commitment to learning, creating boundaries, and helping each child to develop a strong sense of power and worth. These children will then make positive contributions to their communities, which will empower all of us.
The third area of work focused on the asset-building framework is located at Washington University in St. Louis in the George Warren Brown School of Social Work. The focus of this work challenges the current welfare policies that penalize families for creating assets that would allow them to get off welfare. Encouraging people to create and save money using individual development accounts would allow families to start small businesses or save for college for their children.
I encourage social workers everywhere to learn more about the asset-building framework because the rural environments will impact our practice even if we work in urban areas. The reason for this is there are huge populations of people living in cities that have migrated from rural areas.