Traditionally, and for good reason, the field of counseling has been dominated by multicultural approaches. Multicultural approaches focus on the internalization of multicultural principles. They observe levels of enculturation for a person in the culture of origin and use this assessment to understand unique features of the person's pattern of responding. For behaviorists, the conditioning of these principles makes perfect sense and opens the counselor to explore how such values and beliefs are shaped by environmental forces (see Skinner, 1972). In this view, society (most importantly the family environment) establishes contingencies around behavior patterns of people to encultured them to behave in a certain way. For counselors such forces lead to the discussion of power, privilege, and contextual factors that impact the client's life and way of living. For juvenile delinquents, this approach may not be additive to traditional approaches. Indeed, recent research in the area of juvenile delinquency suggests that cultural tailoring is not necessary for such programs (Wilson, Lipsey, & Soydan, 2003). In addition, some research exists that families may actively train children in antisocial rules (Snyder, McEachern, Schrepferman, Zettle, Johnson, Swink, & McAlpine, 2006) and thus the instillation of these values and rules might be counter productive for the overall adjustment in the current culture. Such findings suggest that maybe it is time to explore an alternative approach to delinquency. An alternative approach may allow for the creation of a dialectic through which an ebb and flow may allow counseling to meet the needs of greater number of clients. Thus, instead of starting with the culture of origin and determining enculturation, a logical counter point would be to start with the current culture and determine enculturation. In addition, this approach could establish goals of greater effective functioning in the current culture (e.g. teaching ways to recognize contingencies in place for the current culture and how to increase levels of reinforcement). For lack of a better term, this approach will be called a heritage-based approach. Heritage approach reflects on the values that are passed down from generation to generation in the local culture (in the US--American culture). These values are passed down from preceding generations and tradition through the same cultural contingencies such as the family, the legal system, the school, and the community. This approach would also be consistent with Skinner (1972) in that it holds to social conditioning shaping behavior. Indeed, as Skinner (1972) pointed out what a society values is what it reinforces. In the US, these values would be highlighting things like leadership, self-control, individual responsibility and civics. Unlike a multicultural approach, which explores the culture of origin, level of enculturation, and tries to use metaphors that evoke various relational frames (Blackledge, 2003; Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2005) from that culture, a heritage based approach uses metaphors and images to evoke relational frames of the common current culture to explore values (rules the person lives by) and symbols of the common culture to help collaboratively set goals for therapy. Skinner (1972) discussed the power of using such symbols as art, music, and cultural images in general but applied to therapy they can become a strong and energizing force for change. As with a multicultural behavioral approach draws on the seven standards of behavior analytic therapy to formulate its case conceptualization and intervention plans: (1) a behavior analytic model of child development (Bijou & Baer 1961; Novak and Pelaez, 2004) and a focus on developing behavioral cusp skills (Bosch & Hixson, 2004); (2) a comprehensive ideographic functional assessment, collaborative creation of behavioral goals and clear, specific behavioral objectives and linking intervention to function (positive behavioral support) (3) behavioral activation (Lewinsohn, 1975; Kanter, Baruch, & Gaynor, 2006; Spates, Pagoto, & Kalata, 2006) and contingency management (operant conditioning of EEG patterns, point systems, level systems, community reinforcement); (4) trigger analysis (5) use of respondent conditioning procedures as needed; (6) a strong focus on the therapeutic relationship as derived from Functional Analytic Psychotherapy; (7) the disruption of faculty rule control focusing on acceptance (Hayes, Strossel, & Wilson, 1999) and forgiveness (Cordova, Cautilli, Simon, & Axelrod-Sabag, 2006) and (8) a commitment to living a valued life similar to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (Hayes, Strossel, & Wilson, 1999) and behavioral activation (9) helping the client to see how their behavior has been shaped by current environmental contingencies (i. …