‘Solution Focused Therapy’ is only the worst of the delusions in the Baby P case

A. MacAulay

Having never heard of this therapy, I asked Wiki and this is the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_focused_brief_therapy

A cold shudder ran through me as I read the article and considered the situation as described by Rod Liddle. For such pathological "clients" a therapist of this ilk is just an annoyance, a gormless twat who can be lied to Ad hoc, without them even noticing it.

A therapy can only function with a willing participant, patient, who can understand the process and goals of the therapy.

Bill Corr

So? What is the solution to the hideous problem everyone can now see?

To have more sharp-witted old males working as social workers instead of half-witted iudeologically-driven wimmin?

Remember when nippers were snatched away in the Great Satanic Sexual Abuse Era?

I only ask because a solution would be a good thing.

Ed Bell

@Bill Corr

Eugenics

Ray

Fortunately, in time most social workers also become mothers themselves, which means that in later life they tend to quietly ditch the theoretical guff they were taught at university in favour of practical lessons about raising children that they have to very quickly learn for themselves.

However, it is time the whole process of training social workers was reviewed. For instance, I have never quite understood how having to imbibe Marxist theory about social administration prepares one for the everyday business of spotting youngsters being subjected to horrific abuse - something most 'normal' mothers could quite easily spot within minutes of talking to the child.

Hereford

This is to me a clear indicator of the over academicisation of society. Universities don't tend to teach skills. They teach theories and models, almost invariably with a strong left wing social engineering bias.
Then the rest of society simply places it's trust in these subjects of indoctrination because we all believe that Higher Education equals higher intelligence.
Having worked in a University I have learned that the people who are teaching our kids this crap (the academics) are by and large childlike themselves.
Essentially they are adults who have never left school.

John

Why not group 3 (say) single mothers and house them together in a 3 bed property? They could support each other and hopefully save the taxpayer some cash.

ipio

I am a Solution Focused Therapy - therapist.

Rod wouldn't know this technique if it got into bed with him, gave him a massage and then and stayed for breakfast.

Solution Focused Therapy is a lot of things - but it is NOT WHAT ROD THINKS IT IS. It does not ignore the past, it does not ignore Sharon's situation, infact it is the very opposite.

Clear enough?

He has no idea what he is talking about.

Jez

I just finished reading Millibands contribution in this weeks Speccie, attempting to make the selling off of the UK sound a feasible and rational concept.

I had to read it twice. I thought it some kind of wind up the first time. No honestly, i really did.

Now I’ve just read the above.

Ok. Now i know this is frowned upon by the powers that be (and by Rod) but i think (at least) the man who carried out the breaking of baby P's spine, severing the top of his finger and shattering his rib cage -thus murdering this little boy, should be executed.

Not in some random vengeance driven lynching- but just get rid.

There's no need for someone like that to be here.

The money saved to hold this animal for the rest of his days (£30,000 x 40 years approx = £1.2 Million) donate to a children’s home to fund anti-drugs education, trade apprenticeships, sponsoring living on their own- with jobs, incentives to decent strong families to take some of these kids on.

Break this cycle of utter failure now.

Bill Corr

The road to the worst of hells is often paved with the very best of intentions.

Ed Bell has uttered the dread word and is right in theory but has to be told sharply that it's a non-starter.

Even the Swedes, hardly the world's cruellest people, kept getting it wrong: a girl from a poor and disfunctional family had trouble seeing the blackboard, was ineptly tested and - wrongly - certified as ESN and soon had her ovaries snipped out. This sort of horrific error didn't happen just once, either.

Some of these wronged people were compensated when the full story of eugenics came to be told in the sixties and seventies.

David Burns

Add onto this a "multi-agency"approach where no one has the overall responsibility. A bureaucracy that puts form filling at a higher priority than home visits and Ed Balls asking the guy who made all the recommendations for the current system to determine what has gone wrong - solution even more bureaucracy!

N

Wow, A. MacAulay i read your post and looked up the theory, and you are right it is...crap. I didn't read all of it because after the first line about dealing with the future and not the current problems, i quit reading.

My father is a doctor and he's told me stories about other doctors who are borderline retarded but how does a doctor not notice scabs, missing fingers, infections, and a broken back? Was that doctors examination walking in, then exciting the room?

Bill Vincent

On which theme, who else remembers the Cleveland "abuse" scandal, when dozens of children were removed from their families on the word, largely, of one Dr Marietta Higgs, who thought that by looking up a child's bottom she could prove that said child had been buggered by its father?

It hardly needs to be said that this was all utter nonesense, that the parents, in the teeth of huge official hostility, were vindicated, and that the damage done to the families concerned was devastating.

It also hardly needs to be said that Dr Higgs is still an NHS consultant paediatrician, now working in Kent.

Gives you a nice, warm feeling, doesn't it?

A. MacAulay

In response to Bill Vincent, the answer is to make such persons liable in law for the consequences of their decisions. If a mechanic ruins your car and you can prove it then you can go to court and become redress. If a psychiatrist lets a nutter loose who murders again then, at worst they are shifted to another department. It would make them all much more cautious if they really were responsible for their decisions.

David Bouvier

So ipio what is it? Imagine for a moment a miracle happens, and Rod gets Brief Therapy - how could we tell? What kind of things would Rod say now?

I can see from the wiki description that it seeks to identify positive behaviours in other parts of peoples lives and encourages them to try out similar behaviours in other parts of their lives, and that greatng a positive vision of what they should do is better than a long list of donts.

I expect better from someone who calls themselves a therapist than the chippy information-free "I am the expert" rant you gave us.

robert

ipio:
the only thing that is "clear enough" from your post is that you are part of the problem, not the solution. It is thanks to people like you that the Baby P case happened. Thanks a lot. What are you going to do about it?

Ed Bell

The most ill-making aspect of ipio's self-righteous comment is that he referred to Shoesmith as "Sharon" which suggests he is a colleague or a friend.

Add in the chippy way in which they are incapable or defining what they actually "do" instead of bitching about they "don't" and you have the perfect example of a pseudo-scientific charlatan who is without any doubt in public-sector clover.

B.Cabbage

Divide the 'social work' between the police and doctors. What else is needed?

ipio

I am amused at the ignorant and abusive comments made here.

Solution Focused Therapy is not what Rod thinks it is. It is not practiced in the way Rod thinks is. In fact, Rod has no idea what Solution Focused Therapy is or how it is used.

This article looks like it was written one hour before deadline. The one thing Rod did not do, is research his subject or talk to anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.

As for the sad loosers using this site to insult - I feel very sorry for you.

ipio

Ed Bell

I did not mention anyone called 'Sharon'.

I have no idea who this person is, so am not a friend or collegue

I do not work in the public sector.

I do not have the ability to explain complex psychological theory on a website.

The most ill-making aspect of Ed's self-righteous comment is that he has made up stuff I didn't say - then replied to his own invention, then got upset about it, then got angry at someone else for saying something they didn't say. Then tried to make out he was superior.

Ed, did you know Solution Based Therapy is now available on the NHS? Time to call your GP. Help is at hand.

Bill Corr

Yippee! We are now told that Solution Based Therapy is available on the NHS!

How long is the waiting list?

If the fine specialists in the employ of the NHS can't tell if a child has a broken spine, broken bones, a fingertip missing and numerous contusions they're hardly likely to manage to rearrange the furniture inside my skull after a few touchy-feely-friendly fireside chats, are they?

[2nd attempts to send]

Fergus Pickering

ipio, if Rod Liddle is wrong about whateveritis therapy then put him, and us, right. Tell us, in two hundred words, what it is. You can't? It is too complex? I thought it might be. Quacks have been peddling that line since the dawn of time. Nice little earner no doubt.

Jez

"As for the sad loosers using this site to insult - I feel very sorry for you."

That's the problem;

feeling sorry for someone *all of the time* whilst perpetually digging to find the root causes of (in this case and ones similar) the most extreme crimes on record, when in fact a very well directed boot up the backside earlier on in life with a decent goal at the end of it may do more than a ‘lie down chatty chat’ sipping endless cups of coffee would.

Scandalous.

Ed Bell

@ipio

"Solution Focused Therapy is a lot of things - but it is NOT WHAT ROD THINKS IT IS. It does not ignore the past, it does not ignore Sharon's situation, infact it is the very opposite."

Just over-familiar in a "call me Tony" manner then, and presumably lacking in reading skills.

How could I ever think myself superior to someone who thinks loser is spelt looser ?

Jez

ipio.

Listen. You have an opinion. I disagree with that opinion and so do a lot of people (by the looks of it) on this forum.

*But* you contributing your opinion (for me) is appreciated. This not to have 'an online' argument. It is (to me) an opportunity to listen to the other side.

Here’s my opinion;

A friend of mine's very close relation passed away due to the big C. This person was distraught and basically (to help them through briefly) saw a professional. I feel that work was priceless for that person- who i respect a lot.

In the case of the above i don’t (as an opinion only) agree that this type of counseling is of any benefit to anyone financially, practically or morally.

A person who has been institutionalised within our social 'service', having been told / realizing that if you press the right buttons in these exchanges you'll get a bigger house, spacebus or better benefits etc, then this is an insult to basic common values that the rest of us *have* to adhere to.

The system seems to be failing. This ‘from the top’ superior attitude that some personnel within our social services cling to whilst dealing with these ‘poor uneducated sub-humans’ is unfounded. This because the ‘poor uneducated sub-humans’ are seeing you coming from a mile off.

You’re being played.

They are manipulating the system because they are being given constantly evolving opportunities from a very early age to become a lifelong member of your industry.

Paid for by me.

gerry

During most of humanity's past a mother - parents - had to be both lucky and have protective instincts to have infants who survived. Now, with appalling mothers, the state - you and I - are solely responsible for the survival of the offspring of such mothers. In the household of poor baby Peter were 10 children - 11 if you count the 15-year-old "live-in girlfriend". I suggest that the number would have been very greatly reduced had they not served as a "cash crop".

Rob Slack

I don't think we should regard marriage as somehow special; I see nothing wrong in principle with single/unmarried parents. What I think is important is whether parents are fit for that role (which includes being able to support without handouts from others).

I think we have to ask why some people/families are "disfunctional" (messes). Is it nature or nurture? I'm not an expert on this subject. From what I have read, it seems almost proven that to some extent we are mentally products of our genes. Also, it seems almost proven we are to some extent mentally products of our upbringings. From that it follows different people are messes for different reasons. A one size approach will not solve all problems. If the problem is largely genetic, the solution will have to be eugenic. If it is largely socialisation a eugenic solution would still work (by reducing births in socially disfunctional families). But the benefits of such action would spread over many years. Politicians now look to the future only when it is politically expedient to do so now. Political Christianity (PC) has such a control over the political process and is Christianity is so backward (like all religions) it is difficult to see how the problem can ever be tackled. Just let nature take its course and end up with violence on the streets.

sarah patterson

At last, some straight talk about Baby P's sad life and horrific death.

I'm a US citizen who was living in England last autumn when all the publicity in this case was swirling about.

With all the psycho-babble about social workers, professional training,evaluations, paperwork, lack of communication, and so forth, it seemed to me that someone with only a bit of common sense could have seen the depravity in this situation. And what's this about the father and the grandmother now wailing about it. Apparently, they didn't have the aforementioned common sense either.

Loren

Rod Liddle's piece on Solution Focused Therapy is way too much "Champagne for the Brain," and he needs to cut back on indulging!

I research interventions for people like Baby P's family, and can tell you that far from being a "fantastically stupid form of ‘therapy’" that encourages individuals to "disavow personal responsibility," the solution-focused approach is an excellent intervention that helps people take responsibility for their lives and go out and achieve it. Simple because it was used in this single case is not a reason to blame the approach for the child's death. How many thousands of children have died while other forms of interventions were being used?

KB

Rod,

Do you have a book in the works? Nick Cohen and Andrew Anthony were both excellent on how the Left have caused a political disaster by thinking they could be BFF with the jihadis. Perhaps you could explain how the Left have been responsible for a social disaster as well, for the reasons you mention here.

One more to explain the economic disaster and we'd have the full set.

Jon Livesey

Instead of arguing about what this so-called therapy is or isn't, why aren't we asking what problem it is addressing.

Are monstrous parents like this some kind of norm? Something we just have to put up with? The kinds of animals you might run into anywhere?

Or are they rather, as I suspect, the horrifying results of some of of the policies Labour and the Social "Science" industry have inflicted on British society in the past few decades?

Are these parents just "because", like rainy days, or are they what you get with a trashed education system, the rewarding and subsidizing of unmarried parenting, and the awarding of victim status to some of the country's worst and most vicious pseudo-humans.

If it the latter, then any "therapy" is just an attempt to cure a self-inflicted wound on society; just one of many wounds that are visible more and more in Britain today.

Perhaps we need to worry a little less about inventing "therapies" and concentrate a little more on how society was structured back when it more or less worked.

We won't, of course. We'd rather thrash around looking for more and more exotic therapies administered by more and more plausible quacks and charlatans than admit that our grandparents may have had a better handle on life with nothing more than their instincts than we have with our five GSE A grades and our degrees on social service and communication and basket weaving.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad with pride in their own cleverness.

Charlie

Until the welfare state is reformed, this will happen again and again. The state is co-dependent and actively enables this tragedy.

When are we going to tell it like it is? People who are too stupid to finish school, too undisciplined to hold down a job, and too immature to sustain a relationship, are not going to make good parents, are they? Yet the state pays these morons to be just that: something animals in a barn achieve.
Social work needs to be de-nationalised and given back to Barnardos and the church.

When are we going to grasp this nettle? It is not worth the doctors saying anything: look at what happened to Meadows and Marietta Higgs when they tried to highlight child abuse.

Children in step-families - especially with serial boyfriends as found amongst social worker's 'clients' - are 33 times (not 33%) more likely to be abused than in married families. Bottom line.

The best contraceptive of all is when individuals are required to pay for their choice. In Switzerland, if teenager gets pregnant, her parents are required to support it. Followed by uncles, aunts, cousins and the like. The FAMILY is responsible.

What is the teenage pregnancy rate of Switzerland?

Irene

When I was a child in Scotland, early, before social workers as we know them now there was what we called 'the cruelty men' who dealt with suspected child cruelty. These men were often retired army and police, understood the dark side of humanity and were not afaid of violet or abusive people. Todays social workers seem to have little ot no direct knowledge of how this 'underclass' lives or thinks and are often too scared to do much anyway. I think bringing back the old system for child cruelty would be much better for all concerned.

Pavo Absolutus

Nail well and truly hit - bang on the head, Rod !

I doubt it could ever be possible to re-educate all, or even a quarter of those currently lurking in the guise of "social service" so long as - in this case concerning children - we gaily send our charity monies to the likes of the NSPCC - another 'national' institution taken over by stealth and now run by the very people who should never be allowed anywhere near 'vulnerable' children ( not in any immoral sense, but in terms of 'welfare and safety' objectives ).

For so long as the 'psychobabblers' and liberal tinkerers have their say unopposed, these organisations will continue to destroy young lives !

All they rely on is "Sesquipedalia verba", and because most of the populace are impressed by this rubbish, the 'shock adverts' and bleeding heart actresses continue to outpour their 'demands' on our cash and sympathies.

NSPCC / RSPCA ? same fuddled mindset with very ocasional good works headlined for all they're worth !

Hypocrites !

mike atsg

I loathe the entire concept of "social service". It is a grossly over-extended arm of "public service" populated by those who were unfit to get a better qualification. My poor younger brother died from an overdose many years ago after struggling with heroin for years so I got to meet some of his case workers. What a bunch!

My favourite was a male social worker accompanying my drug-addicted brother from one facility to another and who stayed overnight at our house. He became hopelessly paralytic on best malt, was violently ill, and they had to return to base without completing their journey.

Rod is absolutely correct. This, whatever it is, is
incomprehensible psycho-babble, a view reinforced by ipio's rants. However, in the case of Baby P, I am not too concerned about the utterly useless Shoesmith. I would have expected no better. The biggest sin was committed by the paediatrician. That is unforgivable.

Ian

ipio - if your professional practice is as poor as your spelling and grammar, then your clients ought to start worrying.

It's 'lose' by the way, not 'loose'.

manuel escott

Vintage Rod Liddle. A fine, angry piece in the best trtadition of Spectator journalism.But will anything in Haringey really change after this horror? A line of Woody Allen's came to mind reading Liddle:" She had the body of Marilyn Monroe and the mind of a social worker."

A. MacAulay

I feel ipio has missed an historic opportunity. I can imagine that this therapy would be useful for persons who, in difficult circumstances need to find new courage and goals, and who are willing to set new priorities for themselves. Pity that was left unsaid. For manipulative psycho-cases, junkies, etc. it is clearly worse than a waste of time. More interesting is the "negligence" of the Social Workers and Paediatricians who when confronted with a category of abuse that goes beyond everyday, common or garden mishandling or neglect, seem unable to understand what they are seeing.

The State has a vital interest in the welfare of its citizens. Ideally on the ground of human dignity and practically because alimentation is cheaper than having the poor go off and become robbers in the woods. The Welfare State has its limits, there are still poor people in Sweden, for instance. Our Welfare State though, has created an underclass of wasters who have taken to banditry without having to live in that cold, wet and nasty Sherwood Forest.

It will take a long time to change the course the national staus quo and this will demand understanding, willpower and courage from our politicians. To reach high office is not the goal in itself, but to reach high office in order to DO something for the commonwealth. I haven't given up hope (hope is always the last to die) but remain sceptical if the Tories, as is, are up to it.

Dhimmitudeishere

In answer to Charlie (May 8th, 2009 10:11pm) according to www.swissinfo.ch, "The Swiss teen pregnancy rate (for the ages of 15-19) is just 4.3 per 1,000 women, compared with 9.9 per 1,000 in neighbouring Germany. In Britain the rate stands at 26 per 1,000, with the US the worst culprit in the western world at almost 42 per 1,000."

Roger Carr

You use your hammer wisely, Rod; but perhaps, in this case, an axe?

R.G.

I am deeply saddened by the tone of this article which simply tries to use this tragic case as a way of promoting one person's journalistic career. It really is an utterly cynical manipulation of the situation. I'm also amused that readers of the Spectator put so much store by Wikipedia! That says a lot.

Some of you have invited clarification of the approach so for those of you genuinely interested in the approach I will provide some explanation. Those of you who simply enjoy pontificating on subjects for your own self-aggrandisement, I suspect you will simply try to drown this in invective - so be it.

Solution focused approaches are characterised by a focus on a preferred future, an exploration of the strengths and resources already present in the current situation which could help to move towards the preferred future, and the identification of small signs of future success which can also be translated into ‘small step’ goals. You are correct that it works best with people who are not blatant and shameless liars, but then no therapeutic, medical, social approach works well under those circumstances. There is actually a reasonably good evidence base for solution focused approaches which Rod Liddle could have found quite easily if he'd actually done any research beyond Wikipedia.

One important clarification I will make is that no one in Haringey was using Solution focus as a 'therapy'.

The solution focused approach was originally developed as a form of Brief Therapy, a talking therapy designed to be short-term, and is most widely recognised as ‘Solution Focused Brief Therapy’. Solution Focused Brief Therapy is undertaken in *therapeutic* environments, such as mental health services or by private therapists.

Solution Focused approaches are also used to provide enhanced communication skills in an integrative way within existing professions such as mental health nursing, social work, occupational therapy, psychiatry, psychology and teaching. When used in this way, there is an expectation that the core skills and professional and ethical responsibilities of the practitioner will remain within the requirements of their primary profession and the policies of the services within which they work. No trainer in solution focused approaches will suggest that a practitioner from any professional discipline give up their core skills and responsibilities to their code of ethical practice in favour of solution focused working – indeed that is antithetical to the principle in solution focus, of building on what is already working.

The ‘Signs of Safety’ approach presented by Andrew Turnell in the Panorama programme was developed in Australia in by Andrew Turnell and Steve Edwards as a specific application of the solution focused approach to child protection risk assessment (or ‘safeguarding’ as it is now called in the UK). The main difference of this approach to conventional risk assessment is that **in addition** to signs of risk, the worker enquires about ‘signs of safety’. This allows the worker an additional insight into how a family perceives risk and has a variety of benefits. In some cases the worker may be able to discover positive resources which could be brought forward to help the child remain safe within the family. In other cases the *inability* of a family to produce convincing signs of safety, is a sign that the child is at serious risk.

Andrew Turnell says:

“The child protection field around the world tends to be overwhelmed by anxiety and failure and often falls into the trap of believing procedures and protocols will save the day. The Signs of Safety approach is grounded in actual, on-the-ground human practice that makes a difference for professionals and families and that creates meaningful safety for children in high-risk cases. This approach recreates a purposive, positive focus for child protection work that is both energising and affirming for practitioners who take on this difficult work.”
(http://www.signsofsafety.net/)

It is true that by pursuing an enabling strategy workers run the risk of becoming too much on the side of parents but it is also true that pursuing a purely 'policing' role they risk going too far in the opposite direction. Child care law requires every attempt to be made to keep families together while at the same time putting children's welfare first. A balance needs to be maintained. The Signs of Safety approach to safeguarding is designed to keep the worker focused on this balance. Strong and effective supervision is also essential as it allows a less involved person to weigh up the different aspects to ensure that the risk factors as well as the safety factors are clearly recognised. Child protection social workers are very vulnerable without this supervision. These are systemic issues to do with underfunding and lack of support.

Again, if you have managed to read this far, I would suggest that if you consider yourself an intelligent and critical thinker you will probably realise that the issues which led to the tragic death of Baby P are not simple but I doubt Mr. Liddle cares as he's probably bounced off looking for a new story to show off his prodigious talents in shallow self-serving journalism without a backward glance to the real tragedies that happen to children every day.

Yes, I'm annoyed - no need to tell me, thanks.

A. MacAulay

R.G., sometimes "The tygers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction".

As I understood your contribution, and I had to work hard on para 6, this "therapy" is used not only to help patients/clients who may or may not understand the aims and goals but also as human resource development in caring professions, who do understand the aims and goals. Right? Quality control comes through the , "signs of risk-signs of safety", criteria. Are these also used for the "caring professionals" as well as the patient/clients?

What has led to your feeling misunderstood, perhaps abused is the deep mistrust, despair or anger of laymen who feel that the administration of poverty and social degenerancy does not seem able to improve or change the welfare of its clients. When, in a case of spectacular failure, and such cases are not confined to Britain alone, the paying public expexts such a degree of self criticsm as to show contrition and give hope for improvement in the future. Where this is not seen, then you can expect more polemics like Rod Liddle's

PH

So is that clear to everyone then - Solution Focused Brief Therapy was not used in this case?

I think you are all doing what Haringey Social Services hope you will do; blame some therapy you have never heard of (especially if its got American origins - even better for diversion purposes).

Have you ever thought that Baby Peter died because of the very reasons you give: "waste of tax payers money all this social work mallarkey". Directors of Social Services have budgets they like to keep tight, taking Court Proceedings cost money, taking a child into care costs around £2,000 a week and they don't like to spend it - surely you like them now?

Its easy to criticise Social Workers, I do it all the time but not for the stupid reasons you all give - I think they are stupid for not picking up the phone and threatening to call the police every time they have clear worries about a child and their Manager says "do we have enough evidence? - let's put some support systems in"

Another Baby Peter will die this year, you can guarantee it because when Councils are allocating budgets they like to woo you with lower rates , more cameras in the streets, environmental schemes that make you feel less guilty - but better training for their social work staff? oooh you wouldnt like that, all those single mothers with snotty kids and layabout boyfriends? they can skimp on that because you are never going to jump and down demanding more money be spent on early intervention, more Health Visitors who can track the child from birth, Child Protection staff in schools to check on their welfare, highly trained and experienced social workers who might have the savvy to wipe the chocolate off the child's mouth that's hiding the bruises underneath - spend money on all that? No and you ae never going to complain. They got you sussed and played you like a violin. Keep jumping up and down and blaming a therapy that wasnt used - that will do Haringey nicely.

rod liddle

R.G - I don't understand your objection. The description you give of the therapy coincides almost precisely with my own - although mine is, I admit, briefer. The crucial point of SFBT is that it focuses on the "client's" aspirations for the future, at the expense of dealing with both the past and the present so as to avoid "problem focused therapy". Amidst your sociobabble, that is exactly what you're saying it is.

I think we need someone very right wing indeed in charge of social services to sort you lot out and expunge from your minds this vapid, mimsy ideology. Just as we need someone very left wing in charge of tghe banks.

rod liddle

R.G - I don't understand your objection. The description you give of the therapy coincides almost precisely with my own - although mine is, I admit, briefer. The crucial point of SFBT is that it focuses on the "client's" aspirations for the future, at the expense of dealing with both the past and the present so as to avoid "problem focused therapy". Amidst your sociobabble, that is exactly what you're saying it is.

I think we need someone very right wing indeed in charge of social services to sort you lot out and expunge from your minds this vapid, mimsy ideology. Just as we need someone very left wing in charge of tghe banks.

rod liddle

........and P.H, you miss the point. The blame in particular lies with Haringey Social Services, as all the non-social workers on here clearly understand. And more generally with the mindset of our social services. SFBT is merely a rotten symptom.

P.A.

Actually A.Macaulay, the approach can be used across more than the caring professions. Used intelligently it is also a tool of choice in business management, as those who use it realise that growth; corporate or personal does not come from bullying, vilification, naming, shaming, blaming or posturing. The question, 'what is going well and what can we do to make it better? Is far more powerful than 'What's gone wrong and what do we do to stop it getting worse?' The basic premise being that if what you are doing isn't working, stop doing it and do something else. If what you do does work, do more of it. And finally, please recognise the difference.

If you think that deficit laden, problem focused thought is the right way to go, then that's up to you. I don't want to provide any more oxygen for the rubbish that has been written, by some, up to now; but I'd like you to explain how deficit thought is useful.

And I'm a member of the 'paying public' too, and I recognise the part we all play in the death of
children and adults everyday, in all parts of the world, through our silence, through our support of war, our resistance to free world trade and the focus we have on self.

PH

Rod,
I do get it believe me. But can you see that it is so easy to ease our conscience by looking for blame that you just bought into the theory put up by Panorama that this therapy was to blame. I didnt just look it up on Wikipedia Rod, I went to hundreds of websites, saw the reams of evaluations that show how it kept families together, when approprate and how it helped raise the alarm when it the child was not safe. Why didnt you do the same Rod? Why did you fall into the same pattern as Panorama; taking everything said by Haringey at face value (ooh like Haringey did with the mother?) instead of investigating further independently? You're a journalist aren't you? So many of your comments were spot on for me, I was just disappointed that you bought into the Panorama story without checking further. Solution Focused Brief Therapy is a healthy, respectful, collaborative model that traces "exceptions" to difficulties (and you will know that all scientific theories are based on "following the exception" Rod). The only reason it wouldnt have been appropriate in this instance (I say wouldnt of course because it wasnt used!) is because normal social work practice and safeguarding measures should have been implemented. Don't get hung up on the word "therapy" - this is because it was devised by a psychotherapist initially as a backlash to the psycho-babble of analysis (there's an irony).
The model should not be lambasted because it is a perfectly valid and healthy model. Instead let's all call for financial penalties for Local Authorities who do not instigate Lord Laming's Recommendations to the letter. By the way, Lord Laming is not blaming Solution Focused Brief Therapy - why is that Rod do you think? Could it be that its because he did a proper investigation?

PA

Mr Liddle,

Like many of the chattering classes you know what is wrong. Pray, please use your extensive knowledge and training and expertise in all things populist and tell us how to do it right.

You must know, 'cos you're very quick, like most of your ilk, to point up the failings.

Or have you found something else equally deserving of your insightful ravings and need for an audience. Lots of articulate, thoughtful people posting here ...

PH

Rod - After your thin respose to RG, I can see that you have taken a stand on something, even though you know nothing about it, and will not consider that you might just be wrong about something. The person who invented this model felt as you did that psycho-babble didnt help people build a life but that maybe looking at any time at all when they did get it right might just help. I wouldnt even bother trying to explain this model to you if it werent for the fact that it has been wrongly blamed as being used when it absolutely, plainly was not.

Sorry - got to go now, I have a client coming in half an hour who was abused as a child in a children's home and needs some hope for the future - I think I will ask him "how will he make sure that this experience does not stop him from living a fullflled life?" If you consider that to be socio-babble then why don't you propose a question and I will ask his opinion of your question.

What's that you say Rod? its not your field? No, it isn't but don't let that stop you now when you have come this far on your high horse.

Brian

@PA "...the part we all play in the death of
children and adults everyday"

Who the hell do you think you are? Just because you've got an overactive "conscience" doesn't matter you have to tar everyone with the same brush. Who the hell do you think you are to assume what I am and am not silent about? Precisely which war am I supporting? You had better justify your slur or withdraw it.

Brian

@PA "...the part we all play in the death of
children and adults everyday"

Who the hell do you think you are? Just because you've got an overactive "conscience" doesn't matter you have to tar everyone with the same brush. Who the hell do you think you are to assume what I am and am not silent about? Precisely which war am I supporting? You had better justify your slur or withdraw it.

Jez

Think this may be the moment for a 'time out'?

Without this plummeting into scene from the film 'Breakfast Club', the world of the ‘children’s home’ got a little too close for comfort (regarding myself) for a brief period in very early life.

PH, you mention this;

"Sorry - got to go now, I have a client coming in half an hour who was abused as a child in a children's home and needs some hope for the future"

How?

What would you do (your profession that is) to help this guy?

I don't think you can or should (*whatsoever*) mention anything at all even vaguely related to the individual mentioned but just a brief overview of the action that would help your client.

A. MacAulay

Right R.G., I think we are agreed that SFBT offers motivated, intelligent people in commerce, industry and welfare a useful personell/personal developmentment tool. You have to take my word that I know enough about project management to say that without regular monitoring of previously agreed goals (flopsy bunnies, if you like) projects, and probably non-classical therapies will get nowhere.

As to the Wiki article, you'd need to tell me if it is accurate or not. I expected a generalistion and probably got one.

SFBT was not used in Haringey as a "therapy". OK! As what then was it used? Why is it even mentioned in a report about the murder of this child? And yes, a complex situation in which the greatest mystery is still how it came to be that responsible, professional carers failed to understand the evidence of their eyes.

That this is not confined to Britain is clear, but I meant in comparable social-market economy States with extensive welfare systems and not the big, bad world.

To P.A., I'm not sure what "deficit thought" is but a deficit of thought is quite clear. Just as truth is the first victim of war, common sense is the first victim of ideology.

A. MacAulay

Right R.G., I think we are agreed that SFBT offers motivated, intelligent people in commerce, industry and welfare a useful personell/personal developmentment tool. You have to take my word that I know enough about project management to say that without regular monitoring of previously agreed goals (flopsy bunnies, if you like) projects, and probably non-classical therapies will get nowhere.

As to the Wiki article, you'd need to tell me if it is accurate or not. I expected a generalistion and probably got one.

SFBT was not used in Haringey as a "therapy". OK! As what then was it used? Why is it even mentioned in a report about the murder of this child? And yes, a complex situation in which the greatest mystery is still how it came to be that responsible, professional carers failed to understand the evidence of their eyes.

That this is not confined to Britain is clear, but I meant in comparable social-market economy States with extensive welfare systems and not the big, bad world.

To P.A., I'm not sure what "deficit thought" is but a deficit of thought is quite clear. Just as truth is the first victim of war, common sense is the first victim of ideology.

PH

Jez,
I am, first of all, very sorry to hear that this subject touches on something personal for you.

Secondly, I am a counsellor, using Solution Focused Brief Therapy.

Thirdly, the kind of work I do with this client looks a bit like this:

I ask him "how can I help you today?"

Then, when I have listened to him, I follow that instruction,

i.e. "I just want to talk to get it out of my system"

Then I listen.

i.e. "I don't want to talk about any of what happened, I just want to stop feeling bad about myself"

Then I ask him first of all how he copes now; what works for him now in any small way and when we have exhausted that, I am curious about what a better future might look like "when he feels better about himself - what will be different for him?"

This way I can encourage a viewing of a better future at least.

Then I might use a Scaling Question, 1 = he is stuck in these feelings all the time and 10 = he feels okay about himself most of the time and acknowledges that it was a bad thing that happened to him when he was a child - where is he right now on that scale.?

When he answers, I might then aks him questions about the next quarter up on the scale, when will he know he has moved up? what small thing would tell him? and what difference would it make to his every day life and his self-image?

At all times, it is his life and his "differences a move on will make" that I focus on not a textbook idea that I might have of what will help him.

That's the main focus on this work - far from being "wishy washy" is the most direct, no-nonsense, respectful conversation a counsellor can have, I believe.

My conversations would allow him to look at tomorrow Jez because if I don't ask him those questions - he will never ask himself: the brain is quite obedient you know.

Without taking up the whole post with a step-by-step guide to SFBT Jez - I hope the above gives you an idea how SFBT might help someone move forward rather than rake up that which they have no control over and cannot change.

However, to bring me back to the original post on SFBT - can i just clarify that if you were a child now and I saw that you were not safe then I wouldn't be asking questions of you but would be having a conversation with social services in order that you be kept safe until we can clarify the situation.
Every SFBT Therapist or Counsellor that I know would do the same.

And if I may take this post just to clarify a question asked elsewhere on these posts "if it wasnt used as a therapy - then how was it used in Haringey?" I understand that it was not part of any work at all but one social worker, asked some SFBT questions when she met with the mother - the questions didnt do any harm to the mother (let's not even go there.....) but they didn't do any good for Baby P: no difference really to a comparable situation of, say, her ignoring what was under her nose and asked about how the mother's health was. People wouldn't lambast the medical field because someone asked about someone's health would they? Its a crude comparison but its all I can come up with right now.

Minnie Ovens

ipio
May 7th, 2009 2:45pm

"I am a Solution Focused Therapy - therapist"
Between you and Rod Liddle's account/analysis of this therapy, I can safely say that this sounds more like a Brothers Grimm fairytale.
Anyway anything with a title like that is either a Madof pyramid scam or Beverly Hills social disease.

Jez

Hi PH,

It’s going to be hard to actually come across as sincere on this anymore- probably for most involved. It’s been a pretty ‘charged run’ here regarding this comments section (for the last few hours anyway).

Ok. I mean this in an alright fashion;

Thanks for the reply firstly. I’m surprised but it’s well appreciated.

You must not be sorry for anything related to the news that I mentioned- at all. It was and is fully in the past. I’m sure many other people have had similar (and infinitely worse) situations. I mentioned it because (ever so slightly) it’s in the realm of your client. I was lucky and did good though.

I am very sorry to hear about your client who was not lucky and is struggling / finding it hard.

I’ve heard about the scaling question before.

The main crux of this matter is this;

If you are helping adults who approach their GP etc due to circumstances completely out of their control then this is a priceless service.

If you are helping adults that have been recommended to you that have plunged into negative behaviour due to negative behaviour they’ve been subjected to, then this is a question;

Are you breaking the cycle or are you giving the (hypothetical) client a subconscious / conscious excuse to condone their behaviour.

The care system is full of children, young adults. Within this world (certainly in the 70’s to early 90’s… your client is one of these) there was physical, sexual, mental abuse. The aimless self destruct cliques of the children / young adults , the introduction of hard drugs, total lack of trust in the system / authority, peers of the worst kind and a future of dependency- with every negative connotation that can be linked to that word.

Before they come to you guys (I sincerely mean this as an opinion) when the damage has been done, these kids need to be given a goal and shown what there is out here that’s good.

Childrens home to hostel. Hostel to prison. Prison to hostel.. and so on and so on.

Break the cycle before the wheel turns.

A. MacAulay

Why should it be hard to come across as sincere, Jez? If there is an apparent lack of sincerity, then in the inability, even anonymously, of the SFBT proponents to say that their colleagues in Haringey f*cked up big time with this one.

The non-therapeutic use of SFBT presumably took place during the, "9 attendances by Baby P’s mother at Mellow Parenting sessions, of which five were with Baby P", or during the, "16 contacts between Baby P’s mother and the primary mental health worker". Before succumbing to his injuries, in the 17 months of his life, Baby P made 3.5 visits to health and welfare professional per month. That is nearly once a week!
Quoted from the Times today. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/child_health/article6276087.ece

Anyone who has children knows how exhausting it can be getting a baby to an appointment, but it would be a cheap shot to suggest that the frustration capacity of the parents was so overtaxed by all this visiting that they took it out on the kid when they got home. Probably.

Andrea

'The question, 'what is going well and what can we do to make it better?'

This is a question that is utterly irrelevant to any situation that should be clearly recognised as having gone completely and critically WRONG.

SFBT sounds like no more than 'creative visualization', i.e. if you can see it, you can be it. It's just a happy-clappy method that allows both sides to avoid any sense of accountability.

Jez

A. MacAulay;

In replying to any one on the opposite side of a debate it is easy to slip into insincere point scoring.

PH didn't do that. He told me the step by step procedure of his work.

I didn't do that either. I attempted to tell PH the step by step pattern of events that produce (as an opinion) generation after generation of damaged people completely outside the mainstream of society. Many of who may seek the service PH provides.

This is an ‘after the event’ situation though.

I very strongly believe there should be a firmly directed & disciplined policy of bring these people up and forward at an early age. With investment, with will & with sincerity.

This from a 'dog wagging the tail' and not the 'tail wagging the dog' approach.

In no way would i also advocate a Nietzsche type approach of master /slave ideology either.

There is a global policy to throw quick fix solutions at complex, failing parts of western society. Aborigines are thrown money and drink themselves to death. Africa is thrown food aid with no concept of pushing for future self suffiency, Afghans are thrown internatonal aid to free up their time and effort to produce more Opium… as examples only.

Is it because this is out of the comfort zone for people that feel guilty ‘at the position they are in’ when regarding the level ‘*they* are in’

The problem is that they maybe / are perpetuating the failure.

At what point do you say;

We Have To Beak This Cycle Of failure Now.

Jez

If I’m going to attempt to save the world, I might as well try and word the thing correctly.

I meant to say;

There is a western (liberal?) policy to throw quick fix solutions at the complex, failing areas of society that they have a direct control over? This is a global phenomenon;
Aborigines are thrown money and drink themselves to death. Africa is thrown food aid with no concept of pushing for future self sufficiency (at all in Ethiopia), Afghans are thrown international aid, this to free up their time and effort to produce more Opium… as examples only.
Could it be because many things observed by the better well-off, educated class of person that dictate such policies here are so ‘out of the comfort zone’ that in fact they feel guilty ‘at the position they are in’ when regarding the level ‘*they* are in’. Thus these people overcompensate for this self-inflicted inadequacy?
Or do they subconsciously feel they are better than the people they placed in charge of (‘placed’ is the correct word), so in fact ‘they know what’s best’ – without even finding the need to even approach the point of view / conclusions of the people they’re supposed to be helping.
The problem is that the architects of these everlasting acts of blindly audited generosity / pardoning maybe / are perpetuating the failure.

A. MacAulay

Jez. I am sincere.

If you wish for Africans, etc. to learn to be independant of handouts, then why not apply the same logic to the needy of Britain? There are wards in Glasgow where, after 60 years of Labour administration the men have a lower life expectancy than in Somalia! Look at all the socialist wastelands where a caring, "from the cradle to grave", State subsidises mental, moral, social disaster zones. And no, its not the money spent that's the problem, it's the spent and wasted money, not least in out of context, bullshit therapies.

R.G.

A. MacAuley,

I used solution focused brief therapy within mental health services with the most difficult and damaged clients. In fact the consultant psychiatrist who referred them to me would joke and say 'here see what you can do with X, he/she's untreatable'. There is no requirement for the person to be particularly intelligent or motivated actually. Interestingly one of the main benefits of solution focused approaches is that it generates motivation and it also seems to enable people to take more responsibility rather than be dependent. While the questions can seem quite simplistic, it's actually a highly skilled process using them effectively. I believe that the video referred to in the Panorama programme was part of the worker's training and not actually part of the everyday statutory work and was a one-off. This family were seen around 60 times or so (this figure may be wrong but it's not one or two) and yet the problems were not picked up. This does suggest the fault was elsewhere and Lord Laming's report it probably a better place to start.

Look, I'm not going to spend hours of my time arguing the toss over this - it's just easy to dismiss anything new, especially something as counter-intuitive as SFBT. I think I addressed Rod's concerns by pointing out that in Haringey the staff employing a solution focused approach were still bound by their professional responsibilities and ethical code of practice.

It is incorrect to say that it does not take into account the past - the *focus* is on the future but that doesn't mean that one doesn't talk about the past and it doesn't mean that one ignores signs of risk. It's also worth remembering that *no* form of therapeutic or social intervention, even those with huge evidence bases, show an effectiveness over 75-80%. That means there are 20-25% of people who are not helped or slip through the net.

I'm not arguing with the notion that services could be much better but I think Rod picked the wrong target this time.

Jez

A. MacAulay;

You don't need to tell me. Honestly you don't.

I know where your coming from.

It is hard not to get really wound up about this particular tragedy or many of the similar cases of utter mindblowing ideologically driven disasters (on all levels) we hear about, day in day out. (I nearly got wound up at the start of this exchange about Baby P, certainly.)

You just don't want it to plummet into a slanging match.

All the best.

EG

I think that it is important in this debate to be clear that with any child at risk there are two processes required. The first is quite simple - protection. Alongside that, when possible, there should be some attempt made to improve the situation for the child, to make the child's situation safer, to attempt to ensure that the child's basic needs are met.
No therapy can protect children. Only good safeguarding practices can protect children (and unfortunately even then some children will die).
So whatever approach to therapy is used this is not sufficient to protect children who are at risk and Solution Focus is no different in this way from any other therapy - not adequate in and of itself.
That said there is the interesting question of why Solution Focus has been spreading so quickly amongst front-line professionals, social workers, psychologists, community psychiatric nurses, teachers,child psychiatrists,family support workers, learning mentors and many more. It is spreading because these are the people who cannot pick and choose their clients, who have to work with whomsoever is allocated to them, people who often are not seen as articulate, motivated clients, people who are often turned down by other approaches. and what these front-line professionals have discovered, through their experience, is that Solution Focused Brief Therapy works. It develops cooperation with previously unengageable clients and it makes a difference in the lives of clients whom society has rejected and thrown aside.
What bothers me about Rod Liddle's article is that what I would see as (I am afraid) uninformed comments may make the approach harder to access for many people whose lives can be transformed. And that is cruel and heartless. The research that we have available - let me repeat - shows that this approach works however much Rod Liddle may like to have fun at its expense.
And remember it is not the job of any therapy to protect children - that is the job of good and clear safeguarding practice.

JW

EG Thanks for sharing those thoughts. When I looked through the Panorama program again I was surprised by a contradiction that has not been picked up in this debate so far. They report that the first injuries were reported in December 2006, at a time when the mother said that she and her mother were the only people who had care of Peter. Over the next 8 months more injuries occur and mother is not letting people know she has a partner. Panorama then describe the Solution Focused interview in which the mother ends up talking about having a boyfiend, how he is helping to make a garden for Peter, how her ex suspects her of having an affair, how much she enjoyed cooking a meal for him. The Social Worker then records this information on the electronic file. Whereas Panaroma, and many in this debate, view SFBT as inappropriate for child protection I would have thought this demonstrates how useful it actually was on this ocassion in engaging the mother in a discussion where she reveals to a social worker something she has never revealed before.

EG

Maybe I could make just one more point about the solution focused approach which relates to the way that it was developed.
Most therapeutic approaches have developed as a result of someone developing a hypothesis about what causes problems and then thinking 'OK if that is what causes problems what would we need to do to solve them?'
Solution Focus developed in an interesting and different way.
It emerged from a research project. The project involved looking at video-tapes of effective therapy, often over and over and over, and attempting to determine what the therapist and client are doing together in the sessions that are associated with effective change. From this emerged a description of what effective therapy looks like - namely Solution Focused Brief Therapy.
So unlike many other approaches there is a, may I say, hard-nosed basis to this way of working that interestingly has resulted in shorter interventions, thereby saving tax-payers' money. No wonder this straightforward, practical and anti-theoretical approach, is being embraced in the corporate sector as a model of management! And no wonder that traditional therapists have been wary - it won't earn them enough - it is too brief.

Paul Jackson

Rod, you seem to have given up proper journalism in favour of unresearched invective in this article. Your comments about the solution-focused approach are just crass, and have prompted some very odd rants among your followers. I was struck by the intellectual rigour and respectful-yet-tough approach of the SF therapists I met and studied: so impressed that I co-wrote a book - The Solutions Focus - about applying their pragmatic ideas beyond therapy, into organisations. Let me know if you would like a copy. Best regards, your former newspaper colleague, Paul Jackson.

EV Bliss

Mr Liddle, Mr/Ms MacAulay and others of anti-future focused therapy / approaches: When you arrive for your own personal therapy, what do you first notice about your therapist that tells you he / she is a) Too hard; b) too soft or c) just right?

I am a therapist who works with people that are not helped by a problem-focused system and who have been written off by many other people. Somehow, by focusing "...instead upon a sunlit upland of flopsy bunnies..." these veterans of years of (expensive) problem-focused therapy are no longer draining your pockets (as taxpayers) of statutory funded problem-focused services. Huh. Something is working in our therapy la la land...but of course you wouldn't know that, or perhaps agree with me, because you don't actually DO this kind of work do you? I am interested to know what you will see as evidence that the people you call upon to support you in times of disturbance are just right for you. If you'd care to travel to me, I will give you a free one hour 'flopsy bunny' solution focused discussion so you can become even more qualified to comment. FREE! Bring your own 'Serial Delusions' and let's see what can be done with those eh? If you don't have any serial delusions of your own, we can use the standard 'flopsy bunny' one or I can provide them for you - one we might try is "Imagine that SFBT actually DOES help people - just like the research says it does...how would that make a difference to you?" or perhaps we could go with "Just imagine that overnight your narrow mind opened up to new possibilities. What would be the first thing you would notice that would tell you you were beginning to listen more than talk? Who else would notice this? What difference would it make if you became the sort of person who could thoughtfully consider both sides of a situation before leaping in and rubbishing things you have no experience of?" Seriously. Free session.

Evan George EG

JW I also noticed in the Panorama programme the irony of the reference to the fact that it was to the solution focused worker that the client opened up and referred to the boyfriend. And this is often the case - that people tell the solution focused worker things that they had never really thought to say or indeed had previously refused to confirm. For instance the child who is being bullied at school - when staff and parents ask 'are you being bullied?' the child repeatedly says 'no'. But if you ask the child about changes that they would like to see they will often say that they would like to be happier at school and if you ask them to describe the state of being happier at school the child will say that 'the other children will be nicer to me'. And if you ask for more detail of how the child will know that other children are being nicer the child responds by saying 'they won't be saying horrible things, they won't be excluding me etc. etc.'
So it is true that the Solution Focused approach will often bring to light information that can be useful in keeping children safe - however I still do not believe that any therapeutic approach of itself is sufficient to keep children safe. We need good safeguarding practice and even then it is important to recognise some children will be killed.
Since we have now moved into a new era of apology - where even politicians seem to feel obliged to say that they are sorry repaeatedly and in public - will this new trend extend to columnists? Might we find even Rod Liddle facing up and saying 'sorry maybe I got this wrong - maybe I didn't do enough background research'.
Before the Panorama programme went out Alison Holt the presenter and her producer came to meet and to talk with myself and a colleague. She seemed interested in the Solution Focused approach so after the conversation I emailed her and suggested that she might like to attend a course I was running to find out about the it. Unhappily of course she responded by saying that she did not have the time. There you go. Is that journalists for you?

PH

Jez,
Thanks for your sincerity. This sounds a bit poncy I know - but I felt it. Thanks.

Yep - agree with everything you say and, without going in to a diatribe here: I do encourage accountability, I do not excuse negative behaviour because the client may have experienced negative treatment BUT I do understand and explain that many behaviours are learnt behaviours (and, of course, learnt behaviours can be unlearnt and new ones can be learnt.....)

Breaking negative cycles is what we are all about Jez and often the client discovers, for the first time, that they are capable of breaking a cycle when someone sets them a task that will prove to themselves that they can (but of course, only the client would be able to identify what that task would be, because they are the expert on what works for them and what doesnt - yes?

I never excuse negative behaviour - that would, as you say, further imbed the behaviour but equally telling a client "that is bad - stop it" never really works. However, suggesting to a client that "given your lack of trust in authority because of your bad experiences as a child - how will you keep a balance of mistrust where it is appropriate and the negative, blanket mistrust of all normal societal structures that keeps everyone safe?

That might sound a bit of a mouthful but believe me, last time I asked that of 17 Young Offenders in a Secure Unit - the responses were constructive and, in some cases, just downright incredible.

Suffice to say that no one ever broke a cycle of negative behaviour because someone told them to.

Best regards to you Jez.

Paul

I have to be careful here, but in working within Social Services I see stupidity that I find unbelievable. I hold a reasonable degree in a decent subject (Classics-based), but am not permitted to improve the grammar, syntax, etc of work put together by staff, for whom English is not even e second, but third language. It seems that the language I love cannot be used fully in my place of work, but double-negatives can quite happily enter court. I am, Sir, heartbroken.