HSW2120 Assignment: Brokerage vs. Strengths-Based Case Models

This report provides a comprehensive comparison of two prominent case management models: Brokerage and Strengths-based. It begins with a description of each model, highlighting their core principles and operational approaches. The report then delves into the theoretical perspectives underpinning each model, examining how they are applied in practice, including suitability in specific contexts such as disability services and mental health. The analysis extends to exploring the models' responses to legislative and regulatory changes, like the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The report also analyzes the implications of each model for outcomes, including resource utilization and client engagement. The conclusion synthesizes the key differences and similarities, emphasizing how case managers tailor their approach based on client needs and expected outcomes.

Running head: COMPARISON OF CASE MANAGEMENT MODELS
Comparison of Case Management Models
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1COMPARISON OF CASE MANAGEMENT MODELS
Introduction
Case management is recognized as one of the most effective methods of ensuring that
the clients are receiving the proper care, resources and assistance for their health needs
(Zawadski & Eng, 1988). The job of a case manager is to provide individuals, families and
communities with their health needs by coordinating and advocating. Social service workers,
healthcare professionals and social services workers can work as case managers in many
cases. Their focus is to assess the present scenario, gather data, analyze and determine a best
intervention approach. Plan for the intervention, monitor the effects and close the case when
all the agendas has been achieved. There are four models of Case management, Intensive case
management, Strength-based Case management, Brokerage case management and Clinical
Case management (Joshi, 2003). This study compares and contrasts the Brokerage and
Strength-based case management and analyses its implications in real life practice.
Discussion
Description of the models
Four models are widely used for case management practices. The first is the Intensive
Case Management which is an outreach and counselling service. It is a community based
approach and provides treatment through skills building, family consultations and
interventions during crisis. The second model is known as the Strengths-based Case
Management that was initially developed for treating people with mental illness. The third is
the Brokerage model and is shorter term relationship based model that provides swift care
plan and the last one is the Clinical Case Management which combines both the concepts of
case management as well as clinical therapy into one (Chamberlain & Rapp, 1991). While all

2COMPARISON OF CASE MANAGEMENT MODELS
the four models are applicable and suitable for specific cases, this section compares and
contrasts the brokerage model and the Strength-based Case management models.
Brokerage model
The Brokerage model is a fast action model that provides speedy planning and action
to people in need. This particular model is an effective solution for people who possess
enough resources, support but has lack of time. This approach reduces the waiting time
significantly and in many cases are favored by case managers (Joshi, 2003). This model of
case management approach provides limited access and contact between the case managers
and the clients and thus has received quite a bit of criticism. It is also due to the lack of
contact and relationship building aspect, that the case managers are able to offer their services
to a larger pool of clients. This approach also has limited monitoring and follow up that
makes it unsuitable for more complex issues. Only the clients and case managers having
access to proper fund can enjoy this approach.
Strengths-based case management model
The Strength-based model aims to develop the strengths of the people that needs
support. This model is built on developing the skills and abilities of people so that they
become independent. This approach is more intensive and engaging. People having limited
resource and access to funds can benefit from this approach (Mateus et al., 2017). This
approach is more community based and seeks to empower individuals in order to reduce their
dependency on the case managers and other institutions. This requires higher amount of
contact and relationship building between the case manager and the client, thus making it
more time intensive process. This particular approach is also more effective in building social
connection and wellbeing of the individuals for which it is mostly used in mental health
cases.

3COMPARISON OF CASE MANAGEMENT MODELS
Theoretical perspectives of the models
Brokerage model
The brokerage model is based on the concepts of broking. The theoretical perspective
of the model is that of the work of broker (Vanderplasschen et al., 2007). The case managers
in these cases, work as communicators or facilitators of services and ensure that their clients
receive the speediest possible service and best possible options for their recovery. This kind
of services are only possible when the client is affluent and is residing in areas where
multiple options of services are available and they are able to take their decisions, such as
disability care or victims of alcohol and drug abusive relationships.
The case manager’s job, who are following the brokerage model is to help the clients identify
their needs and broker the resources and services that will benefit them the best. Once those
resources are identified, their job is done and there is not much scope of contact or
monitoring for the case managers to see whether their intervention planning has worked. This
is effective in certain situations when the case managers are working with large number of
clients or are responding to an emergency situation (Woodside & McClam, 2016). The result
is immediate and instantaneous which suits many of the client needs. This approach is mostly
followed in the metropolitan areas where people have more resources and are need of speedy
assistance.
Strengths-based case management model
The theoretical perspective of Strength-based model of Case management is to
provide specialized and developmental care for people suffering from mental illnesses. The
issues related to mental illnesses are often born out of lack of confidence, self-esteem, and
loss of culture, alcohol and drug abuse and so on. The basis of this approach is building
strengths of the individuals, families, groups and organizations so that they become more

4COMPARISON OF CASE MANAGEMENT MODELS
independent and able to recover from their conditions and empower themselves so that do not
relapse (Gelkopf et al., 2016).
The Strength-based approach has two principles, the first is to ensure support to the
clients as they try to find the basic resources for their survival such as housing or employment
and the second is to examine their strengths and available assets that they can use to assist the
clients to acquire the resources (Tse et al., 2016). The perspective is to increase the overall
wellness and according to research, increasing social connection, empowerment,
independence and strength building can improve one’s psychological condition.
Analysis and application of the models
Suitability of the models
The two models are completely different in their approach and philosophy. Though
they follow the same method of assessment, evaluation and intervention planning, they are
different in their essence, approach and outcome. The Brokerage case management is only
possible when the client is affluent and is residing in areas where multiple options of services
are available and they are able to take their decisions, such as disability care or victims of
alcohol and drug abusive relationships while the Strength-based model is suitable mostly to
the cases related to mental illness and people with drug or other substance use, i.e.,
individuals or families dependent to their case managers or healthcare providers and are in
dire need of financial assistance (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. 1998). For example,
in a case of substance abuse, where the wife and the child is in the danger of abuse from an
alcoholic husband, both models can be applied depending on their situation. If the wife is an
earning member and can afford a speedy relocation and has support of her family members,
Brokerage model can be applied whereas if she is a dependent and requires multiple services
such as child protection, police protection, financial resource, social support, relocation,

5COMPARISON OF CASE MANAGEMENT MODELS
employment and counselling, a more focused approach is needed which the Strength-based
model can provide (Vanderplasschen et al., 2019).
Response to legislative and regulatory changes
Changes in the governmental legislations and regulations might affect these models
substantially. For example, regulatory changes in National Disability Insurance Scheme
might make it harder for the case managers to provide all the necessary aids that their clients
need in a brokerage model (What is the NDIS? | NDIS. Ndis.gov.au. 2020). It is a coverage
that people receive after they have taken the policy which means that two clients having same
disability might get served differently. Similarly, in Strength-based Case management, the
establishment of Australian Charity and Not for Profits Commission (ACNC), might help the
case managers to provide better support for domestic abuse of alcohol abuse victims or
spouses to become independent (Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.
Acnc.gov.au. 2020).
Implications of the two models for outcomes
The outcomes of the two models also differ in most cases. The Brokerage Model is
high on resource use and the participation of the patients are less in the process of their care.
They avail the services to achieve some specific outcome, for example, aid for disability or
employment, their requirement is fulfilled, and the case is closed. The Strength-based model,
on the other hand, is more resource efficient (Chamberlain & Rapp, 1991). It requires more
involvement between the case manager and the people in need of services. The model looks
into the development of strength of the people involved in it and thus seeks to use all the
resources that are available and are most useful to them. It is also much more time taking than
the Brokerage model and requires engagement of the client to a greater degree.

6COMPARISON OF CASE MANAGEMENT MODELS
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be said, that both the Brokerage model and the Strength-based
model are useful in case management. The application and method of the models are different
and requires different resource allocation and client engagement. Case managers use them
according to the kind of case they have and the outcome that is expected by the client. The
focus reamins on the needs of the client and the kind of result that they expect. Thus, case
managers, being oriented towards their client might approach each case differently and apply
different models for best outcome.

7COMPARISON OF CASE MANAGEMENT MODELS
References
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. Acnc.gov.au. (2020). Retrieved 21
March 2020, from https://www.acnc.gov.au/.
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1998). Comprehensive case management for
substance abuse treatment.
Chamberlain, R., & Rapp, C. A. (1991). A decade of case management: A methodological
review of outcome research. Community Mental Health Journal, 27(3), 171-188.
Gelkopf, M., Lapid, L., Werbeloff, N., Levine, S. Z., Telem, A., Zisman-Ilani, Y., & Roe, D.
(2016). A strengths-based case management service for people with serious mental
illness in Israel: A randomized controlled trial. Psychiatry research, 241, 182-189.
Joshi, A. (2003). A critical analysis of the broker and strengths models of case management:
Identifying a potential framework for community case managers. Care Management
Journals, 4(2), 66.
Mateus, P., de Almeida, J. M. C., de Carvalho, Á., & Xavier, M. (2017). Implementing Case
Management in Portuguese Mental Health Services: Conceptual
Background. Portuguese Journal of Public Health, 35(1), 19-29.
Tse, S., Tsoi, E. W., Hamilton, B., O’Hagan, M., Shepherd, G., Slade, M., ... & Petrakis, M.
(2016). Uses of strength-based interventions for people with serious mental illness: A
critical review. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 62(3), 281-291.
Vanderplasschen, W., Rapp, R. C., De Maeyer, J., & Van Den Noortgate, W. (2019). A meta-
analysis of the efficacy of case management for substance use disorders: A recovery
perspective. Frontiers in psychiatry, 10.

8COMPARISON OF CASE MANAGEMENT MODELS
Vanderplasschen, W., Wolf, J., Rapp, R. C., & Broekaert, E. (2007). Effectiveness of
different models of case management for substance-abusing populations. Journal of
psychoactive drugs, 39(1), 81-95.
What is the NDIS? | NDIS. Ndis.gov.au. (2020). Retrieved 21 March 2020, from
https://www.ndis.gov.au/understanding/what-ndis.
Woodside, M. R., & McClam, T. (2016). Generalist case management: A method of human
service delivery. Nelson Education.
Zawadski, R. T., & Eng, C. (1988). Case management in capitated long-term care. Health
Care Financing Review, 1988(Suppl), 75.