Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (OJJDP Model Program Guide)

Office of Justice Programs, Innovation - Partnerships – Safer Neighborhoods

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Serving Children, Families and Communities

PREVENTION

IMMEDIATE SANCTIONS

INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS

RESIDENTIAL

REENTRY

MPG HOME SEARCH HOME SEARCH ENTIRE PROGRAM DATABASE SEARCH USING RISK & PROTECTIVE FACTORS PROGRAM TYPES RATING SYSTEM REFERENCES NOMINATE PROGRAMS RELATED LINKS RESOURCES DMC-REDUCTION BEST PRACTICES DATABASE DSO BEST PRACTICES DATABASE

Solution-Focused Brief Therapy

Intervention:

Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) is based on social constructionist philosophy and emphasizes what the client wants to achieve through therapy rather than concentrating on the client’s problems. The approach emphasizes the present and future rather than on the past. The therapist/counselor uses respectful curiosity to invite the client to envision a preferred future and then helps the client start moving toward it. By helping clients identify the things they wish to change in their lives—and also to attend to those things that are currently happening that they hope will continue happening—SFBT therapists help their clients construct a concrete vision of a preferred future for themselves. SFBT can be applied in individual or group settings.

To achieve such proactive change in a group setting, SFBT practitioners structure sessions in a way that a) uses the resources and strengths presented by individual group members, b) recognizes that change, particularly positive change, by individuals is inevitable, c) concentrates on a present and future orientation, d) develops treatment sessions that are cooperative and collaborative, e) points out that problems are not solved but solutions are considered, f) discusses exceptions to problems that then become the building blocks for solutions, and g) organizes treatment sessions that are goal directed and goal driven.

To facilitate the group, practitioners then ask questions such as the miracle question, the scaling question, the relationship question, and the exception-finding question. For example, the SFBT practitioner using the miracle question might ask: “Suppose that tonight, while you are asleep, there is a miracle and the problem that brought you here today has been solved. However, because you were asleep you are unaware this miracle happened. Could you tell me, what would be different in the morning that would tell you a miracle has taken place?” In addition, the practitioner might ask the scaling question: “On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being most confident, and 1 being the opposite of that, where would you say you are now, and where on the scale would you like to be?” Examples of the relationship question include the following: “Who would notice that you had reached your goal on the scale? If a close friend were here right now, what would he or she say about how you have reached this goal? What would she or he be seeing that would convince her or him that you had accomplished your goal?” Finally the exception-finding question: “Tell me about a time when you were not depressed.”

Evaluation Methodology:

Study 1
SFBT was evaluated by Newsome (2004) with a quasi-experimental pretest–posttest comparison group design. A nonprobability, convenience sample included 52 students (26 students who received SFBT and 26 students who did not). Participants were selected from the current seventh and eighth grade rosters of a single junior high school in Ohio. All potential participants for the study were defined as any student in the seventh or eighth grade identified as being at risk for academic failure on the basis of below-average academic performance or displaying chronic or low attendance from the previous academic year who was not receiving or currently under the provisions of an Individual Education Plan. Placement of students in the intervention group was based on each student’s class schedule, the grade of the student, and the likelihood that SFBT would not interfere with the student’s academic classes (e.g., math, English, social studies, history). Conversely, the aforementioned factors were not considered for students who did not receive SFBT, given that they were used for comparison purposes only. The two groups were not statistically different on any baseline measure.

Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were used to examine the differences between participants in the groups on the dependent variables of grade point average (GPA) and absences. Measures of central tendency, independent t–tests, chi-square, and ANCOVA were used as statistical techniques in the study. As with other applied outcome research, the .05 level of statistical significance was used in the study.

Evaluation Outcome:

Study 1
The study results indicate that SFBT may possess some useful qualities as a group intervention with students at risk for academic underachievement by improving their GPAs. The results indicate that participants who received SFBT enhanced their overall GPA from 1.58 during the pretest to 1.69 during the posttest. Conversely, the comparison group participants’ mean GPA at pretest was 1.66, whereas the mean at posttest was 1.48. The findings were statistically significant. Despite the encouraging results pertaining to GPA, no statistical significance was found between the two groups on the dependent variable of school attendance. A closer look at the data reveals an important issue when considering the possible impact of SFBT on postattendance levels. Participants in the treatment group did not present an issue of school attendance at the beginning of the school year, or at the onset, duration, or conclusion of the study. In fact, participants in the study appeared to be attending school on a regular basis. Thus, student nonattendance may have been an issue for the participants in their previous academic school year—a criterion for meeting the at-risk definition as well as for participation in the study—but appeared to be irrelevant during the academic school year when the study took place. This, in turn, may have resulted in the lack of treatment outcomes on this dependent variable.

Other Information:

References:

Newsome, William Sean. 2004 “Solution-Focused Brief Therapy Groupwork With At-Risk Junior High School Students: Enhancing the Bottom Line.” Research on Social Work Practice 14(5):336–43.

Program Specification:

Current Rating:

Promising

Expected Date of Re-Review:

Summer 2013

Program Type:

Classroom Curricula

School/Classroom Environment

Ethnicity:

African American

White

Gender:

Both

Age:

13 - 14

Problem Behaviors:

Academic Problems

Risk & Protective Factors:

Risk

School

Dropping out of school

Low academic achievement

Low academic aspirations

Negative attitude toward school / Low bonding / Low school attachment / Commitment to school

Truancy / Frequent absences

Protective

School

Above average academic achievment / Reading and math skills

High expectations of students

Presence and involvement of caring, supportive adults in school

Strong school motivation / Positive attitude toward school

Student bonding (attachment to teachers, belief, commitment)

Additional Information:

Status:

Program is NOT in operation at this time.

Performance Measures:

Suggested OJJDP Performance Measures for the Program Types(s):

Delinquency Prevention
Classroom Curricula
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
School Programs
Classroom Curricula
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
School Programs
School/Classroom Environment
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF

Contact Information:

Training & TA Provider:
Sara Smock, PhD, LMFTA
Applied and Professional Studies
Broadway and Akron Street, Room 260, Human Sciences Box 1210
Lubbock, TX 79409-1210
Phone: 1.806.742.2891 x262
Fax: 1.806.742.1070
Email: Click Here