Solution Focused Brief Therapy Today,

Solution Focused Brief Therapy

Today, school counselors across the country are faced with the twin harsh realities of increasing caseloads and dwindling budgets. Moreover, because the clientele involved are young people, there is little room for false starts and experimentation in identifying counseling methods that will provide the desired outcomes. In this environment, formulating effective counseling techniques has assumed new relevance and importance. One such counseling approach that has been found to be effective in educational settings is Solution Focused Brief Therapy, or SFBT. To determine how this counseling method works and its appropriate applications, this paper reviews the relevant peer-reviewed and scholarly literature to provide a description of SFBT, as well as an analysis of its relative strengths and limitations for school counseling practice. A series of reflections including accommodations, interventions and/or referrals is followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

Review and Analysis

Description of Solution Focused Brief Therapy.

Because resources are by definition scarce, particularly in educational settings, Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) is well suited to application in a wide range of counseling settings where the need for achieving positive outcomes as quickly as possible is important. For example, according to Fernando (2007), "Solution-Focused Brief Therapy has become known as a practical approach in the treatment of many psychological problems. During recent years, this approach and other brief, minimal, and short-term interventions have gained significant attention due primarily to their cost-effectiveness" (p. 226). Indeed, the defining characteristic of SFBT is a frugal approach to the provision of counseling services. The co-developer of the SFBT approach, de Shazer (1985), summed up the approach by emphasizing that, "What can be done with fewer means is done in vain with many" (p. 58). Congruent with this philosophical orientation, the SFBT approach to counseling can be broken down into three straightforward rules, which are known collectively as the "central philosophy" of SFBT (de Shazer, 1990) as described in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Three Rules of SFBT

Rule

Description

If it ain't broke, DON'T FIX it!

According to SFBT's co-founder, Steve de Shazer (1990), this first rule means, "If the client is not actively complaining about it, then it is none of our [therapists'] business" (p. 93). In contrast to traditional models of practice, solution-focused therapists do not look "below the surface" or "read between the lines" for underlying illnesses or unrecognized problem states. Rather, therapy is entirely focused on the client's complaints, which are accepted at face value and considered resolved when the client says so (de Shazer, 1991, 1994).

2. Once you know what works, DO MORE of it!

From a strictly pragmatic perspective, this rule means that therapeutic work should be focused on identifying times when the problem is not happening. Once found, all efforts should then be aimed at helping the client repeat and maintain these exceptional periods. On a theoretical level, however, this rule sets SFBT apart from most traditional approaches, in that emphasis is placed on looking for "what works" and encouraging it to continue, rather than looking for what is "broken" and needs "fixing." De Shazer (1990) further notes that this rule also highlights the crucial distinction between SFBT and MRI models, "They [MRI] mistakenly think that the third rule (do something different) is the second and our second rule is the third" (p. 94).

3. If it doesn't work, then don't do it again, DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT!

The solutions people use to solve problems are often part of the problem. Treatment is successful when therapists are able to help the client stop doing what is not working and do something different. "All that is necessary," de Shazer and colleagues (1986) maintained in the first paper setting out the core principles of SFBT, "is that the person involved in a troublesome situation does something different, even if that behavior is seemingly irrational, certainly irrelevant, obviously bizarre, or even humorous" (p. 210).

In addition, SFBT is concerned primarily with emphasizing those events that are positive for the student and a number of different approaches can be used for this purpose such as the following:

1. Problem-free talk is required at the beginning of the counseling session in order to provide the students with a positive focus (e.g. A hobby).

2. Small steps of change can be traced: "What have you done that is good for you since last time

3. Scaling can be used: "On a scale of 0 (worst) to 10 (best) - a step-ladder image can be used for primary children - where do you think you are in terms of your schoolwork (behavior) friendships, etc. " Most children are surprisingly realistic. If a student places himself on "4," discussion can focus on what he will need to do to reach "5" or even "4.5." Small realistic steps of progress are powerful agents for change. De Shazer reverses the scale values - i.e. 10 (worst) to 0 (best) -- "to create a rolling down rather than a climbing up-hill feeling."

4. The miracle question can be used: "In the night a miracle takes place; you don't know that it has happened. When you wake up, what is the first thing that will happen which will tell you that everything is better again?" Although this questioning technique can be upsetting for both the student and the teacher/counselor in the event students describe an event which is known to be impossible - e.g. father, who has left home, is miraculously there again at breakfast., it can be used if it is kept in mind that young people are better able to slip in and out of unreality than adults are. This example could be discussed and then replaced with a more realistic hope.

5. Toward the end of a session a list of compliments emphasizing strengths and successes (which has been compiled during discussion) can be read out to the child. This may seem artificial, but it represents a sincere and powerful device for making failing children feel better about themselves, and for emphasizing the good changes which are already taking place (Jones & Charlton, p. 73).

In order to establish a therapeutic relationship and counseling environment, a typical SFBT session sequence would typically follow the pattern below:

1. Problem-free talk;

2. Problem definition;

3. Exception finding;

4. Goal setting;

5. Small steps of change;

6. Short breaks for counselor/teacher to think;

7. Compliments - which should in fact be used throughout the session; and,

8. The intervention: set the student a task which seems appropriate, realistic and likely to make things better (Jones & Charlton).

Although SFBT does not provide a "one-size-fits-all" counseling regimen that can be applied to all students across the board, it does possess a number of strengths as well as some limitations for school counseling practice which are discussed further below.

Analysis of the Strengths and Limitations of SFBT for School Counseling Practice

Some of the more salient strengths of SFBT relate to its cost effectiveness and ability to effect positive changes in students in a relatively short amount of time. In this regard, Jones and Charlton (1999) report that, "Solution-focused brief therapy is based on one simple idea which, however, is difficult to put into practice: listen to the child, find out what it is that the child wants and work with the child towards achieving it" (p. 70). Although this approach sounds straightforward and simple enough, young people are not "little adults" and they may not be as forthcoming as their adult counterparts in revealing what is troubling them; indeed, they may not even be consciously aware of the more operative factors that are adversely affecting their lives and academic performance. Although this is not an absolute prerequisite for the SFBT approach to succeed, there are some others that must be satisfied in order for this counseling technique to achieve meaningful change. As Jones and Charlton point out, "The prerequisite from the child must be a desire to change and the prerequisite from the teacher must be a willingness to look at all sorts of issues with the child. The teacher's goal is to help the child to learn, yet, in order to achieve this, issues may need to be covered that may seem to be wholly unrelated to work. Several meetings will probably be needed and could be as short as ten minutes or as long as an hour" (p. 70). The cornerstone of SFBT, then, relates to developing an informed view of the problem or problems from the perspective of the young person involved. In this regard, Linton (2005) advises, "The solution-focused approach makes no assumptions about the true nature of the problem that clients experience. Instead, the approach focuses on the personalized constructions that the client creates about his or her unique experiences and how the client, or someone else in the client's life, defines the problem based on those experiences" (p. 297).

Another strength of the SFBT approach is the availability of a set of guidelines that can be followed by even novice practitioners of the method from the outset. For example, Jones and Charlton note that it is possible to develop appropriate problem-solving techniques in the following four major areas:

1. Identifying the goal which is appropriate and achievable;

2. Identifying exceptions to the usual pattern of problems;

3. Measuring the student's progress towards achieving the goal; and,

4. Providing useful and positive feedback.

Finally, SFBT can be used either as a "stand-alone" counseling approach or in tandem with other techniques. For example, Linton (2005) emphasizes that SFBT ". . . can operate as a stand alone approach or in conjunction with traditional models of treatment. Solution-focused mental health counselors do not view SFBT and traditional models of treatment as incompatible. Collaborating with clients to create counseling goals, be they directed towards abstinence, self-help group attendance, changes in thinking errors, or some other goal of the client's choosing, selves to enhance motivation to change" (p. 298). Likewise, Jones and Charlton also note that, "Brief therapy has some features in common with cognitive therapy techniques such as problem-solving skills training. Future developments in this area may see combinations of such therapeutic inputs" (p. 74).

One of the fundamental limitations of SFBT, though, is a paucity of timely and relevant studies concerning its efficacy in school counseling settings. According to Lewis and Osborn (2004), at the time of writing, two studies reporting favorable outcomes (e.g., length of treatment, and achievement and maintenance of client goals) of SFBT have frequently been cited in the SFBT literature; however, these two studies were based on methodology described by these authors as "poorly developed," and remain unpublished. As a result, assertions concerning the utility and efficacy of SFBT remain strictly theoretical and have not been subjected to rigorous empirical analysis (Lewis & Osborn, p. 38).