brief strategic family therapy

8/7/2019 Brief Strategic Family Therapy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-strategic-family-therapy 1/12

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator

From the Administrator

Just as a child is influenced by his or

her family, the child’s family, in turn, is

affected by the culture of which it isan integral part. If we are to succeed

in preventing and combating delin-

quency, we must work to strengthen

the role of the family within the com-

munity in which it resides.

This Bulletin features a family-

strengthening strategybrief strate-

gic family therapythat integrates

theory with decades of research and

practice at the University of Miami in

an intensive, short-term, problem-

focused intervention, generally

lasting 3 months.

The Bulletin also describes the

therapy’s implementation by the

Spanish Family Guidance Center.

The Center, which was established

by the University of Miami’s School

of Medicine, serves the local His-

panic community, consisting largely

of Cuban immigrants. In adapting

brief strategic family therapy to the

needs of its clients, the Center took

into account the strengths and weak-

nesses these minority youth and

families bring to therapy, and those

special risk and protective factors

are also highlighted in these pages.

The needs of families are addressed

most effectively within the social and

cultural milieus of those families.

Brief strategic family therapy is a

time-tested approach to that end.

John J. Wilson

Acting Administrator

April 2000

Brief StrategicFamily Therapy

Michae l S. Robb ins and Jo sé Szapoczn ik

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-

quency Prevention (OJJDP) is dedicated to

preventing and reversing trends of increased

delinquency and violence among adoles-

cents. These trends hav e alarmed the pub-

lic during the past decade and challenged

the juvenile justice system. It is widely ac-

cepted that increases in delinquency and

violence ove r the past decade are rooted ina number of interrelated social problems

child abuse and neglect, alcohol and drug

abuse, youth conflict and aggression, and

early sexual involvem entthat m ay origi-

nate within the family structure. The focus

of OJJDP’s Family Strengthening Series is to

provide assistance to ongoing efforts across

the country to strengthen the family unit by

discussing the effectiveness of family inter-

vention programs and providing resources

to families and com munities.

The 1970’s witnesse d a t remend ous in-

creas e in the numbe r of Hispanic adoles-

cents involved with dr ugs. In resp onse t othis pro blem, th e Univers ity of Miami (FL)

School of Medicine, Department of Psy-

chiatric and Behavioral Sciences, esta b-

lished the Spanish Family Guidance Cen-

ter in Miami to provide ser vices to the

local Hispanic com munity, which was pre-

dominately recent immigrants from Cuba.

The Center was initially funded by th e

U.S. Dep ar tme nt of Health , Educ ation, an d

Welfare, Office of Econom ic Opp or tun ity.

One of the first challenges the Spanish

Family Guidan ce Cent er’s clinical pro gram

encoun tered involved identifying and de-

veloping a culturally appropr iate and ac-

ceptable treatment intervention for Cu-

ban youth with be havior prob lems. To

understand Cuban culture and how it re-

semb led, and differed from, mainstrea m

culture, the Center’s st aff condu cted acomprehensive study on value orienta-

tions. The stud y determined that th e

Cuban comm unity expected a family-

oriented approach in which therapists

take act ive, directive, present -oriented

leaders hip roles (Szapocznik, Scopet ta,

et al., 1978).

The Center’s s econd challenge involved

developing intervent ions to help recent

immigrant Hispanic families work to-

gether to d eal with th e stress of accul-

tura tion. In th ese families, it was q uite

commo n for conflicts to e merge or inten-

sify when the children or ad olescentsbegan to beh ave in ways th at were not

cons istent with t he families’ trad itional

cultural values. Typically, these conflicts

occurred as ch ildren and adolescents as-

similated more rapidly than their parents

to th e bicultural environment in which

the y were living, and o ften involved a clash

between the American value of individual-

ism and the Hispan ic value of familism.

Such intergenerational (parent ver sus

Fam

ilyStr

engthe n i n g S e r i e s



2

adolescent) a nd cultur al difference s often

yielded intense conflict within the family

and resulted in parents and adolescents

feeling alienated from one another.

In 1975, the Span ish Family Guidance Center

adopted struct ural family therapy (SFT) as

its core approac h, and SFT has been at the

hear t of the Center ’s effor ts to de velopinterventions for use in culturally diverse

conte xts (Szapocznik and Kurtines, 1993).

Over time, the s truc tur al approa ch of SFT

has bee n refined to meet the need s of theHispan ic comm unity in Miami. For example,

SFT uses treatment met hods th at are both

strategic (i.e., problem focused and prag-

matic) and time limited. Thus, the s tructu ral

approach has evolved into a time-limited,

family-based approach that combines bot h

structu ral and st rategic inter ventions. This

appr oach , called brief strat egic familyther apy (BSFT), has become t he mos t com-

mon intervention used b y the SpanishFamily Guidance Cente r for families tha t

include youth with beha vior p roblems.

BSFT evolved from more than 25 years o f

resea rch and p ract ice at the University of

Miami. The structural orientation of BSFT

dra ws on th e work of Minuchin (Minuch in,

1974; Minuch in an d Fish man , 1981; and

Minuch in, Ros man , and Baker, 1978), andthe stra tegic as pects of BSFT are influenced

by Haley (1976) an d Mada nes (1981). By

integrating theor y, resear ch findings, and

clinical prac tice, BSFT has been continu-

ously refined to impro ve its effectiveness

with youth with behavior prob lems.Since its modes t beginning in a small stor e-

front locat ion, the Span ish Family Guid-

ance Center has grown in response to the

needs of the minority comm unity in Mi-ami. In particular, work with youth with

behavior problems has expanded t o in-

clude minor ity families from a var iety of

backgrounds , including both Hispanic

(from the Caribbe an Islands an d Central

and South America) and African American

youth and families. To accom moda te th is

expansion, th e Center for Family Studieswas estab lishe d as an um brella organiza-

tion to se r ve inner-city minority youthand families in Miami. The m ission of the

Center for Family Stud ies is to iden tify th e

needs of minority families a nd develop

and refine culturally app ropr iate interven-

tions to meet those needs. The Center for

Family Stud ies us es BSFT to h elp ch ildre nand adolescents with conduct, delin-

quency, and other behavior-related prob-

lems, including alcohol and s ubs tance

abuse. To improve youth behavior, BSFT

attem pts to ch ange family intera ctions

and cultur al/contextual factor s tha t influ-

ence youth beh avior prob lems. BSFT is

based on the fundamental assumption

that the family is t he “bed rock” of childdevelopmen t; the family is viewed as the

primar y context in which children learn

to t hink, feel, and b eh ave. Family rela-

tions are th us believed to play a pivotal

role in the evolution of beh avior problems

and, consequently, they are a primary tar-

get for inter vention.

BSFT recognizes t hat the family itself is pa rt

of a larger s ocial system an das a ch ild is

influenced by he r or his familythe family

is influenced b y the larger soc ial syste m

in which it exists . Sens itivity to cont extual

factors begins with an und ers tanding of

the influence o f peer s, scho ols, and neigh-borhood s on the de velopment o f childre n’s

be havior pro blems . However, BSFT also

focuses on pa rents ’ relationships with

children’s peer s, schools, and neighbor-

hoods and on th e unique relationships

that p arents h ave with individuals and

syste ms o utside t he family (e.g., work or

groups s uch as Alcoholics Anonymous).

Program ObjectivesBSFT has been revised to resp ond to t he

unique strengths and weaknesses minor-

ity youth and families in Miami br ing totherap y. Several of these r isk and protec-

tive factor s are d escr ibed below.

Mitigating Risk Factors

Immigration. Many of the families ser ved

by th e Spanish Family Guidance Center

have rece ntly immigrated t o the United

States . The immigration proce ss crea tes

specific problems that m ust be ad dressed

in treatm ent. For examp le, many families

emigrate in stages; it is not unc ommon for

one pare nt, usually the mothe r, to come

to the United States alone to es tablish a

place and econom ic means for t he family

and then bring the children to th is countr y. For m any families, this p roces s is pro

tracted, and they are separ ated for many

years. Moreover, the reunification proce

often fails to m eet family members ’ expe

tations. Children are often disap pointed

when th ey arrive in the United States and

see t hat t hey are living in an impover-

ished, d angerous, inner -city commun ity.

Likewise, parents are often d isappointed

when they are confronted with angry and

emotionally detache d ch ildren. As a re -

sult, treatment often involves attem pting

to reestab lish parent-child bond s and cr

ate new family str ucture s that include thparent who was s eparate d from the famil

High con flict. Intense and persistent

conflict is a com mon cha racter istic of

families of youth with b ehavior p rob-

lems. High levels of conflict inter fere

with parents ’ ability to resolve problem

communicate effectively, nurture, and

guide the ir children. BSFT focuses on

ass ess ing the family’s con flict reso lutio

style and developing specific interven-

tions to help families n egotiate and re -

solve th eir differen ces more effectively.

Inner city. The po werful influenc e of

neighborh oods cann ot be ignored whenworking with inne r-city yout h and fami-

lies. In fact, accu mulating evidence

shows tha t the pos itive changes made in

family ther apy are often overwhelmed

by the harsh and deteriorated condit ion

of the inner city. As a re sult, the focus of

BSFT ha s e xpande d from individua l fami-

lies t o include t he re lationship b etween

families and the multiple systems that in-

fluence ch ildren. Developme nts in the

clinical model have been heavily influence



3

by the th eore tical work of Urie Bronfen-

bren ner (1977, 1979, 1986) an d t he

ground bre aking clinical work of Scott

Henggeler and his co lleagues (Henggeler

and Borduin, 1990; Henggeler, Melton,

and Smith, 1992). In p art icular, BSFT has

expanded to include atte ntion to the rela-

tionship between families, on one hand,and s chools, peer s, juvenile justice agen-

cies, and neighborhood s, on the other.

Enhancing ProtectiveFactors

Extended families. One of the mos t effec-

tive protec tive facto rs is th e availability of

stro ng extended family networks. It is not

uncommon, for example, for t reatment to

include grandp arents, aunts, uncles, cous-

ins, or even close friends (“fictive kin”) who

grew up with the child’s parents. Although

these networks may also be s ources of

problems for the family, they a re frequentlysourc es o f strong sup por t. In BSFT, thes e

networks are often used to bolster or ser ve

the importa nt functions of the family. For

example, extend ed family membe rs are

freque ntly engaged in treatmen t to help

monitor the children while parents are at

work. At times, memb ers of the extended

family or fictive kin assume primar y lead-

ersh ip roles in the family when parent s are

unable or unwilling to p erform thes e t asks.

In mos t instanc es, BSFT seeks t o st rengthen

social connections by increasing mutual

support and decreasing tension and con-

flict b etween th e family and the extended

support network.

Family fo cus. A secon d pro tective factor

that has helped minority families in Miami

is the ir str ong se ns e of family unity. High-

lighting the need s of the family above th e

needs of individual family memb ers moti-

vates many adults to participate in inter-

vention s. In fact , the Spa nish Family Guid-

ance Center initially selected a family

approach because of the Cuban (the target

population in the 1970’s) emphasis on fam-

ily values. As th e Center rea ched out t o

many different Hispanic pop ulations in the

1980’s an d t o African Amer icans in the

1990’s, the em phas is on the impor tance of families remained consistent. Minority

groups in the United States generally place

great value on their nat ural reference group

(e.g., family, extended ne twork, or t ribe) .

Target PopulationBSFT targets children and adolescents be-

tween the ages of 8 and 17 who are display-

ing or a re at risk for d eveloping behavior

problems, including substance abuse.

BSFT has b een implemente d as a preven-

tion, early inter vention, and intervent ion

strategy for d elinquent and substance-

abusing adolescents.

Theoretical

UnderpinningsThe goa l of BSFT is to imp rove yo uth

behavior by:

x Improving family relationsh ips t hat

are presumed to be directly related

to youth beh avior prob lems.

x Improving relationships b etween th efamily and other impor tant syste ms that

influence the youth ( e.g., school, peers).

To unde rst and th e sp ecific way in which

BSFT produc es ch anges in thes e relation-

ships and sub sequent ch anges in behavior

problems, it is necessary to under stand

some of the b asic pr inciples on which BSFTis based.

Systems

BSFT ass umes that each family has its

own unique character istics and prop er-

ties that emerge and are ap parent only

when family membe rs interact. This fam-

ily “system” influences all member s o f the

family. Thus, th e family mus t be viewed as

a whole organism r ather than merely as

the co mpos ite sum of the individuals or

group s th at c omp os e it. In BSFT, this view

of the family syste m is evident in the fol-

lowing assump tions:

x The family is a s ystem with interd e-

pendent/ interrelated parts .

x The beh avior of one family membe r can

only be unde rst ood by examining the

context (i.e., family) in which it occur s.

x Interventions must be implemented at

the family level and m ust t ake into ac-

count th e complex relationships within

the family system .

Structure

BSFT also focus es on “str uctu re.” While

the co ncept o f a system is useful, onemust under stand th e system’s b asic

stru cture to recognize the mechanism

through which it operates . Thus, as

noted ab ove, the existence o f a system

explains how th e b ehaviors o f family

members are interdependent. These in-

terdep endent or linked behavioral inter-actions amon g individuals tend to recur

and create pat terns of interac tions

amo ng family me mbe rs . In BSFT, the se

repetitive patterns compos e a family

system’s struc ture. This view of structur

is evident in th e following ass umpt ions:

x Structure refers to th e repetitive pat-

terns of interactions that characterizethe family syste m.

x Repet itive intera ctions (i.e., ways fam

ily members behave with one anotherare either s uccessful or unsucces sful

in ach ieving th e goals of the family or

its individual members .

x BSFT targets repe titive p atter ns of in-

tera ction (i.e., the h abitual ways in

which family memb ers b ehave with

one another ) that are directly relatedto the youth’s behavior problems.

Strategy

BSFT believes in a s trat egic app roach th

uses pragmat ic, prob lem-focused, and

planned interventions. This strategic ap

proach emerged from an explicit focus odeveloping an inter vention that was q uic

and effective in eliminating symptoms. In

BSFT, this str ategic app roach is evident

in the following ass umpt ions:

x Inter ventions are pr actical. That is,

interventions are tailored to th e uniqu

char acteristics of families a nd a re

implemented to achieve attainable

treatment goals.

x Inter ventions are prob lem focuse d. A

problem-focused approach targets fir

those pa tterns of interactions that mo

directly influence the youth’s ps ycho-

social adjustment and ant isocial behaviors and targets one prob lem at a tim

x Interventions are well planned, meanin

that the therapist determines what see

to be the m aladaptive inter actions (i.

interactions that are directly related t

the youth’s b ehavior p roblems), dete

mines which of these might be targete

and estab lishes a plan to help the fam

ily develop more effective patt erns of

interaction.

Process Versus Content

As no ted abo ve, BSFT is prima rily con-

cerne d with ident ifying and ameliorating

patterns of interaction in the family syste

that are p resumed t o be directly related t

beh avioral sympt oms. This focus on pa t

terns of interactions is also referred t o as

“process ” focus. Rath er th an focusing sim

ply on what h app ens in th e family (e.g.,

what dad said when he yelled at the chil

dren), BSFT focus es o n ho w interactions

occur (e.g., who was involved in the con

flict, when it occurred, who resp onded t

whom, what precede d and followed the



4

incident ). This important distinction be-

tween process (p atterns of interaction) and

content (spec ific and concrete information)

is a fundam ental conce pt of BSFT. This pro -

cess focus is evident in the following

assumptions:

x Process refers to what beh aviors are

involved in an interaction and howthey o ccur. Second arily, proces s re fers

to the mes sage that is communicated

by the nature of interactions or by th e

style of com munication, including allthat is commu nicated nonver bally,

such as emotion, tone, and the under-

lying power re lationship.

x Content refers to the s pecific and con -

crete facts used in the communication.

Content includes s uch th ings as the

reas ons th at family membe rs offer for

a given intera ction.

x BSFT is proce ss oriented at all times.

The emp has is is on ident ifying the na -ture of the inter actions in the family

and changing those interactions th at

are maladaptive.

Components ofInterventionThere are three intervention compo-

nen ts in BSFT: joining, diagnos is, and

restructuring.

Joining

Individuals from families that include youthwith b ehavior pro blems are very difficult to

engage in treatm ent. For th e pas t 15 years,

the Center’s s taff have focus ed explicitly on

family resistance and h ave developed spe -

cialized p roce dures for engaging families in

treatment. These procedures , which are

descr ibed in more detail below (see “Engag-

ing Hard-To-Reach Families” on page 8), are

based on two fundamental assumptions:

x Engagement o r joining begins from the

very first con tact with the family.

x Resistance can be und erstood in the

same way as any other pattern of

family intera ction.

In BSFT, joining occur s a t two levels. First ,

at the individual level, joining involves es-

tablishing a relationship with each partici-

pating family memb er. Secon d, at t he level

of the family, the th erap ist joins with t he

family system t o create a new ther apeutic

system. Joining thus requires bo th s ensi-

t ivi ty and an ab ili ty to respond to th e

unique cha racteristics o f individuals an d

quickly discer n th e family’s gover ning

processes.

A numb er of spe cific techniques can be

used to join the family, including m aint e-nance (e.g., supp ort ing the family’s s truc -

ture and entering the s ystem by accepting

their rules that regulate beh avior), track-

ing (e.g., using what th e family talks abo ut

(content) and h ow their interactions un-

fold (proces s) to e nter t he family sys-tem), and mimesis (e.g., matching the

temp o, mood, and s tyle of family memb erinteractions).

Diagnosis

In BSFT, diagnos is re fers to identifying inter -

actional patterns (struc ture) that a llow or

encourage problematic youth behavior. Inother words , diagnosis determines how the

nature a nd cha racter istics of family interac -

tions (how family member s beh ave with

one anot her) c ontr ibute to the family’s

failure to meet its ob jective of eliminating

youth p roblems. To derive comp lex diag-noses of the family, therapists carefully ex-

amine family interactions along five interac-tional dimensions (see the tab le on pages

6 and 7): structure, resonan ce, develop-

mental stage, identified patient , and c on-

flict resolution.

Asses sment refers to the s ystematic review

of the detailed or molecular asp ects of fam-

ily interaction to identify specific qualities

in the pa ttern s of interaction of each family

along the five dimensions p resented in the

table. In contrast, clinical formulation refersto the p roces s of integrating the informa-

tion obtained through ass essment intolarger patterns or processes that character-

ize the family’s inte rac tions . In family sys-

tems therapy, clinical formulation explains

the p atient’s pres enting symptom in rela-

tionship to t he family’s ch aract eristic pat-

tern s o f intera ction. For example, a ch ild’sacting out may be s een as resulting from a

lack of parental sup er vision and m onitoring

that, in turn, are influenced by a p oor ma ri-

tal relationship and disagreement about

parenting practices.

In ad dition to t he family interactional factors

tha t are cent ral to BSFT, individual and so-

cial factors must b e considered for a com-plete clinical formu lation. At t he individual

level, psychological factors (e.g., beliefs, atti-tude s, intelligence, and psych opat hology)

and biological factors (e.g., family predispo-

sition toward alcohol abuse or b ipolar dis-

order) must be considered when evaluating

the impact of family interactions o n th e

problems experienced by youth. Moreover,

other social systems that th e family comes

into contact with may have a pro found im-pact on t he family, and cons equently, must

be co nsidered in the clinical formu lation.

For e xample, youth intera ctions at schoo

or with peers a nd the n ature of the neigh-borhood may serve as po werful risk or pro

tective factors. In addition, one’s p arents ,

extended family, friends, or career may

serve as sources of strength or stress that

may or may not contribute to the problem

experienced by the youth.

Restructuring

As t her apists identify what a family’s p at

tern s of inter action are and h ow these fi

with individual and s ocial factor s, they

make judgments ab out the relationship be

tween t he family’s p atter n of interact ion

and th e youth’s prob lem behaviors. Basedon thes e judgments, therapists develop

specific plans for changing the family inter

actions an d individual and s ocial factor s

that a re directly related t o the child’s prob

lem beh avior. The ultimate goal of treat-

men t plans in BSFT is to ch ange familyinteractions that maintain the problems

to more effective and ada ptive intera c-tions th at e liminate th e p roblems. BSFT

therapists use a range of techniques tha

fall within th ree br oad c ategories:

x Working in th e pre sent .

x Reframing.

x Working with bound aries a nd alliance

Working in the present. While some typ e

of couns eling focu s on t he p ast , BSFT fo-

cuses p rimarily on the present interac tion

that occur between family members and

are obser vable to the therapist. For ex-ample, enactments a re a cr itical feature o

BSFT. Enactm ents encou rage, he lp, and/o

allow family membe rs t o beh ave or intera cas th ey would if the th erap ist were not

present. Very frequently, family member

will spontaneously behave in their typica

way when the y fight, interr upt , or criticiz

one a noth er. Therefore, when families be

come r igidly focuse d on s peaking to the

therap ist, the therap ist should systemati

cally redirect comm unication to encour ag

interactions between session participants

There are two reas ons for encour aging en

actments . The first is to per mit the thera-pist to obser ve problematic interactions

directly rath er th an relying on stories

about what happens when the therapist

is not pre sent . Clinical experience sh ows

that families’ stories a bout how they inte

act are o ften ver y different from their ac-

tual interactions.

The second reas on for enactme nts, and

a centr al tenet o f BSFT, is th at th e th erapist is responsible for res tructu ring (or

trans forming) intera ctions. Frequently,



5

interactions are tr ansformed when the

ther apist allows family memb ers t o inter-

act and then intervenes in the midst of

these interactions to facilitate the occur-

rence or emergence o f a different, more

positive set of inter actions. It is importa nt

to rem embe r th at in BSFT, therap ists are

not interes ted in having the family simply“talk ab out ” beha ving different ly. Rath er,

they are inter ested in having the family

behave differently during and following

the intervention sessions.

Reframing. Perhaps one of the most inter-

esting, useful, subt le, and power ful tech-

nique s in BSFT is refra ming. Refram ing

create s a different sens e of reality; it gives

family members t he opp ortunity to per-

ceive their inter actions or s ituation from

a different pers pect ive. Reframing is a re-

structuring technique that typically doesnot cause the ther apist to lose his or her

rapp ort with the family. For t his reas on,reframing should b e use d liberally through-

out the treatment process, especially at the

beginning of treatmen t when th e ther apist

needs to br ing about changes bu t is still in

the proces s of building a working relation-

sh ip with t he family. Reframing ser ves two

extremely important functions. First, it is a

tool for changing negative and ap parently

“uncaring” emotions into positive and car -

ing intera ctions. This is ach ieved, for e x-

ample, by redefining anger and frust ration

as the b onds t hat tie a family together; the

thera pist may help a parent recognize that

his or her anger toward a child is based

on love. The oth er impor tant function isto sh ift from a blaming or cas tigating ap-

proach to developing a team s pirit that al-

lows family members to acknowledge that

they are in therapy because they care about

one ano ther. One ma jor goal of all restruc-

turing inter ventions is to create th e oppor -

tunity for t he family to be have in const ruc-

tive new ways. Tha t is, when t he family is

unable to bre ak out of its ma ladaptive inter-

actions, the the rapist’s job is to help th e

family intera ct in a n ew, more p ositive, way.

Working with boundaries and alliances.

The lives of youth who us e dr ugs are likely

to include a comp lex set of alliances th atrequire intervent ion. The a lliances bet ween

the drug user and other users and s ellers

need t o be severed, and alliances with indi-

viduals who can encour age prosocial be-

haviors need to be es tablished.

Boundaries are the social “walls” that exist

around groups of peop le who are allied with

one anothe r and that s tand between indivi-

duals and group s that are not allied with

one ano ther. Shifting boundar ies refers to

changing the p atterns of alliance. A common

situation o f drug-using youth is a s trong alli-ance with only one pare nt. The resulting

alliance may cross generational lines a nd

work against th e trad itional parental hierar-

chy. For examp le, there m ay be a st rong

bond between a youth and her or his

mother (or mother figure). Whenever theyouth is punished by the father (or father

figure) for inapprop riate be havior, theyouth may solicit sympathy and supp ort

from the “mother” to underm ine the

“fathe r’s” authority and r emove th e sanc -

tion. In a single-pare nt family, it may b e th e

grandmother who overprotects the youth

and under mines the parent’s attemp ts at

discipline. Shifting of bound aries involves:

x Creating a more solid bond bet ween

the p arents so the y will make execu-

tive decisions together.

x Removing the inappropriate parent-

child alliance and replacing it with a nappropriate alliance between both p ar-

ents or parent figures and the youth

that meets the youth’s needs for sup -

port and nurturance.

Implementation

Philosophy

BSFT is bas ed on th e assu mption that t he

familyone of the m ost import ant and influ-

ential systems in the lives of children and

adolescents provides t he foundation for

child de velopme nt. As a res ult, BSFT con-

ceptualizes and intervenes to ch ange youth

beh avior pro blems at th e family level. Al-

though BSFT also uses unique interventions

to work with individual family members (see

“One-Person Family Therapy” on page 7), it

attemp ts to include t he en tire family in

treatment. In fact, therap ists are very activin trying to engage relucta nt family mem

bers, particularly during the early phase o

therap y. The basic philosophy is that thera

pists will be able to unders tand family prob

lems and treat youth behavior problems

more effectively if they view the family’spatte rns of interac tion directly.

Although BSFT the rap ists a re ac tive and

directive, they never do what t he family

members can do for themselves. Thether apist’s goal is to m ove in and out of

family interactions, creating opportunitie

in the ses sion th at will prop el the family’s

interactions in a new, more positive direc

tion. Even in these circums tances , the

ther apist mo ves br iefly into a centra lized

role and quickly moves o ut of it. Idea lly,

when the therap ist leaves the system, thfamily will be able to resp ond pos itively t

internal and external cha llenges. Excep-tions are allowed when crises occ ur or

when situations ar ise that require expert

intervention (e.g., suicidal thoughts or be

haviors, family violence/a bus e).

A fundamental assumption of BSFT is that

families enter treatme nt with their own,

natura lly occ urring, informal n etworks,

including friends, extended family membersch ools, and work. BSFT therapists examin

thes e networks to identify potent ial prob

lems or areas o f strength on which to cap

talize in therapy. Thus, rath er th an attem pt

ing to hook family members into formal

systems, like social services, that tend t o btransient in nature, BSFT tries to improve

natura lly occurr ing relationsh ips so th efamily is more likely to mainta in pos itive

changes when the therapist (or s ocial



6

ser vices a gency) is no longer involved

with t he family.

Length of Treatment

BSFT is a sho rt -ter m, pro blem-focus ed in-

ter vention. The average treatment includes

appr oximately 12–15 sess ions and lasts

about 3 months. For more severe cases,

such as substance-abusing adolescents, the

average number of sessions and length of

treatment may b e doub led. It is important

to n ote , however, th at BSFT is not a fixed“package.” Treatment continues until the

family achieves changes in key behavioral

criteria rath er th an until it completes a

predetermined number of sessions.

Location of Treatment

Most BSFT work with ch ildren with be hav-

ior prob lems occu rs in the office. How-

ever, some treatment of substance-abusing

adolescents and t heir families is c on-

ducted in the home or community. The

movement to “home-based” treatment re-

sults from many factors; therapists m ust

deal with families tha t are h ighly disorga-nized and/or u nmotivated to attend treat-

ments and families that lack the necessar y

resources (e.g., transp ortat ion, money) to

make it t o t he office. BSFT does n ot b elieve

that h ome- or community-based treatment

is required for all youth with beh avior

problems, but finds t hat it may be re -quired for more severe cases . Therapists

should never allow the location of treat-

ment (e.g., home, office, schoolyard) to

become an obstacle to treatment.

Development of aCulturally SpecificFamily ApproachApplying BSFT to Hispanic families revealed

how profoundly the p rocess of immigration

and a cculturat ion could affect t he family

and eac h mem ber. To meet th is challenge,

an inter vention was s pecifically designed toaddress the special stressors and clinical

prob lems faced by th is population.

Bicultural EffectivenessTraining

The Center for Family Studies d eveloped t he

bicultural effectiveness training inter vention

to enhance b icultura l skills in all family mem-

ber s. Bicultural e ffectiveness training is

specifically des igned to a meliorate the

acculturation-related stress es confronted

by two-generation immigrant families

(Szapocznik et al., 1984).

A clinical t rial1 investigated the relative effe

tiveness of bicultura l effectiveness training

in comp ariso n with BSFT (Szapocznik,

Santisteban, et al., 1986b) in improving be-

havior problems in early adolescence and

family functioning. (Drug-abusing adoles-

cents were excluded from this s tudy becau

they were considered beyond th e reach of

the intervention.) The results of this study

indicated tha t bicultural effectiveness t rain

ing was a s effective as str uctur al family

ther apy in improving adolescent and family

functioning. These findings suggested that

bicultural effectiveness training could ac-

complish the goals of family therapy whilefocusing on the cultural content that made

the t herapy attr active to Hispanic families.

Family Effectiveness Trainin

Subseq uent ly, BSFT and bicultur al effec-

tiveness tr aining were combined into a

Dimensions of Family Functioning* Addressed in Brief Strategic Family Therapy

Hierarchy/Leadership

One parent is more active than t heother.

Child is more p owerful than t he pa rents.

Behavior Control

Parent s are not e ngaging in beh avior

control when needed or are engaging

in ineffective beha vior con trol (e.g.,

inappropriate consequ ences, lack of

followthrough, unclear expectations,

inconsistency, or excess emotion).

Guidance/Nurturance

Parents do not nur ture children.

Parents a re poor role mode ls (e.g.,engaged in illegal activity, substance

abus e, or violence).

Spousal Alliance

Marital relationship is poo r (e.g., high

conflict or d isengagement).

Enmeshment

Emotional, psych ological, or p hysical

boundaries between family members

are exces sively close.

Disengagement

Emotional, psych ological, or p hysical

boundaries between family members

are excess ively distan t.

Structure Resonance

Executive Subsystem

Decisionmaking subsys tem is abs ent.

Sibling Subsystem

Relationship bet ween siblings is po or

(e.g., high conflict or disengagement).

Triangulation

Child is s tuck in the middle of a

conflict between ad ults.

Communication

Family lacks direct verbal co mmunica-

tion or us es ineffective commu nication

(e.g., vagueness , ser monizing, or

excess emotion).

One family memb er ser ves as a

switchboard o perator or gatekeeper.

* Examples of problems in family interaction are listed under each of the five dimensions.

1 This stud y was funded b y National Institut e of Ment

Health (NIMH) gr ant #MN31226.



7

Parenting

Parent is immature.

Children

Child is trea ted a s/ac ts to o young (e.g.,

overly restricted, low requireme nt/

opportunity for responsible behavior,

or no negotiation allowed).

Child is trea ted a s/ac ts to o old (e.g.,

overloaded with ad ult tasks or exhibits

paren tlike behavior).

Extend ed Family

Extended family usur ps p arenta l power

or trea ts the p arent like a child.

Negativity

Family membe rs a re critical about andnegative toward the ident ified patient.

Centrality

Identified p atient is almos t always th e

centr al topic of convers ation.

Family membe rs ar e organized around

the identified patient and her /his

problem behaviors.

Support

Family members protect or suppor t

identified p atient.

Denial/Avoidance

Family memb ers d eny or avoidconflict.

Diffusion

Family members jump from conflict to

conflict withou t ach ieving any dep th

regarding one particular issue.

Emergence Without Resolution

Family engages in an indept h d iscus-

sion abou t a par ticular conflict but is

not able to resolve the problem.

Negativity/Conflict

Family inter actions are op enly critical

or hostile.

Developmental Stage Identified Patient Conflict Resolution

package called family effectiveness training

(Szapocznik, Santisteban, et al., 1986a). A

study2 investigated t he value of family

effectivenes s tr aining as a preven tion/

inter vention st rat egy for Hisp anic familiesof children ages 6–11 who pre sent ed emo -

tional and b ehavioral problems (Szapocznik,

Santiste ban, et al., 1989). The r esults of this

stud y indicated t hat families in the family

effectiveness training treatment group

showed significantly greater improvement

than did control families on measures

of family funct ioning, prob lem be haviors,

and child self-concept. Thus, the interven-

tion was able to improve both child

and family funct ioning. The improvem ents

were s till in effect at 6-mont h followup.

Multicultural EffectivenessTraining

Recently, the cultural co ntext in Miami has

becom e more comp lex. When bicultural

effectiveness training and family effective-

ness training were developed in the 1970’s,

the targeted Cuban-born families lived in a

cultural context that was dominated by

Cuban immigrants and Caucas ian Ameri-

can s. However, by th e 1990’s, Miami in-

cluded Cuban Americans , Cuban immi-

grants , Caucas ian Amer icans, LatinAmericans from n early all countries in

the Western Hemisphere, African Ameri-

cans , and Haitian immigrant s. In resp onse

to these changes , the bicultura l effec-

tiveness training intervention was rede-

signed into th e multicultura l effective-

nes s tr aining (Mancilla and Szapocznik,

1994) program that helps non-Cuban

Hispanic paren ts understand the com-

plex cultural conte xt in which they live.

In multicultura l effectivenes s tr aining, the

cha llenges faced by non-Cuba n Hispan ic

families who find t hem selves in a cu lture

tha t is h eavily influenced by Cuban Ameri-

cans are considered for the first time.

One-Person FamilyTherapyEngaging the who le family in tre atment is

one of the mos t challenging aspec ts of

working with youth with be havior prob lems

and their families. Thus, developing a p ro-cedure that can ach ieve the goals of family

ther apy without h aving the whole family

prese nt was an impor tant cha llenge.

To meet t his challenge, it was neces sar y to

question some b asic theoretical assump-

tions of conventional family system s p rac-

tice. Family systems th eory pos tulates th a

the youth’s beha vior prob lems are a symp

tom of flawed patterns of family interactio

As s uch, interventions must change family

interactions that produce problem beh av-

iors in the child. Conventional family sys

tems theorists assume that to change these

interactions, the e ntire family must be

prese nt in ther apy. Thus, the c hallenge in-

volved developing an approach, One-Perso

Family Therap y, that s eeks to change fami

intera ctions wh ile working with o nly on

per son ( Szapoc znik, Kurt ines, et a l.,

1990; Szapocznik and Kurtines, 1989).

One-pers on family ther apy app lies th e pr i

ciple of complementarity, which suggests

that a cha nge in the beh avior of one family

membe r will lead to corresp onding change

in the beh avior of other family member s.

One-pers on family therapy us es th is prin-

ciple d eliberat ely and s trate gically to direc

the identified patient to ch ange his or

her beha vior in ways tha t will lead t o2 This study was funded b y National Institut e on Drug

Abuse (NIDA) gran t #1E0702694.



8

adjus tments in the b ehavior of other family

members toward him or h er.

A clinical trial3 examined the effectiveness

of one-pers on family ther apy, comparingthe entire family format with the one-person

format of BSFT (Szapoc znik, Kur tines , et

al., 1983, 1986). Both con ditions were d e-

signed to us e the BSFT frame work so th atonly the nu mber of people would d iffer.

Results indicated that one-per son family

ther apy was as effective as the group for-

mat not only in improving behavior andreducing drug abuse in the youth, but

also in impr oving and m aintaining signifi-

cant improvements in family functioning.

The results of this stud y demonstrated

that it is po ssible to c hange family inter-

actions even when th e whole family is not

present at most ses sions. It is important

to not e, however, that one-person familyther apy was mos t effective when it was

implemented b y expert BSFT therap ists.To implement one-person family therap y,

ther apists m ust b e proficient with family

and individual BSFT technique s. One-

person t echniques are very complex and

sophisticated and thus require a therap ist

with exten sive training and experience in

changing family inter actions.

Engaging Hard-To-Reach FamiliesAlthough it is possible to conduct family

thera py through one p erson , getting indi-

viduals to begin treatment co ntinues to be aproblem. For example, in the clinical trial

discusse d a bove, only 250 of approximately

650 families who met intake criteria on the

basis of a telepho ne screen ing began the

intake process. Of this number, 145 com-

pleted the intake proced ure and on ly 72

completed treatment. Clearly, a very large

propor tion of families who initially seek

treatment never participate in therapy.

Strategic Structural SystemsEngagement

Strate gic struc tural systems en gagement

was de veloped to more effectively engagedrug abus ers and their families in treatment

(Szapo czn ik, Perez-Vidal, et al., 1990;

Szapocznik and Kurtines , 1989). It is ba sed

on the p remise that resistance to change

within the family results from two systems

prop er ties. First , the family is a self-

regulatory systemthat is, the family will

attemp t to maintain struct ural equilibrium

(status quo) which, in the case of drug-

abus ing youth with behavior prob lems, can

be a ccomplished by avoiding therapy. Sec-

ond, while the pre senting symptom may be

drug ab use, the initial obst acle to cha nge is

resistance to treatment. The same struc-

tur al principles that ap ply to family

functioning and t reatment also apply to

und ers tand ing and hand ling the family’s

resistance to treatment (Szapocznik,

Per ez-Vida l, et a l., 1990). The solution to

overcoming the undes irable “symptom ” of

resistance is to r estr ucture th e family’s pa t-terns of interaction that permit the symp-tom of resistance to cont inue to exist. It is

here th at one-pers on family ther apy tech-

niques become useful because the pers on

requesting help becomes the person

through whom ther apy can work to im-

prove the family’s p attern of intera ction.

Having accomp lished the first phas e of

the th erapeutic process in which resis-tance h as been overc ome and th e family,

including the drug-abus ing youth , have

agreed to p art icipate in therapy, the

ther apist may sh ift the focus of the inter-

vention toward the r emoval of beh avior

problems and drug abuse.

Clinical work suggests t hat t he pa ttern s

of interaction that permitted the symp-

toms to exist may be the same patt erns

of inter action th at keep the families from

ente ring trea tmen t. Hence, to have the

oppor tunity to intervene in these h ard-to-

reach families, the therap ist using strate-

gic struct ural systems engagement must

begin the intervention with th e first phone

call rather th an th e first office session.

To tes t th e effectiveness of strategic struc

tural system s engagement in engaging an

retaining Hispanic families with drug-

abusing youth in treatm ent, a major clini

cal trial4 was con ducted (Szapocznik,

Per ez-Vidal, et al., 1988). In t his s tu dy,strate gic struct ural systems engagement

was comp ared to an engagement-as-usual

cont rol condition. Clients in the contr ol

condition were approac hed in a way that

resembled as closely as p ossible the kind

of engagement that usually takes place in

outpatient center s. There were two basicfindings from th e st udy (Szapocznik, PereVidal, et al., 1988). Firs t, as figure 1 sh ow

the e ffects of the experimenta l condition

were dram atic. More tha n 57 perce nt of

the families in the engagement-as-usual

condition failed to par ticipate in treat-

ment. In contr ast, on ly 7.15 percent (fou

families) in the st rate gic stru ctur al sys-

tems e ngagement cond ition failed to participate in treatm ent. The differences in

the ret ention rates were also dr amatic. I

the engagement-as-usual cond ition, 41

percent of cases did not comp lete treat-

ment; whereas, in the t reatment condition

17 percen t of cases d id not complete

treat ment. Thus, of all cases ass igned to

ther apy, 25 percen t in the e ngagement-as-usual condition and 77 perce nt in the

strategic structural systems engagement

condition were succes sfully comp leted.

For families that co mpleted t reatme nt in

both conditions, behavioral improvemen

4 This st udy wa s funde d b y NIDA grant #DA2059.

Percentage of Families

0

20

40

60

80

100

Engagement

Engagement-as-Usual Control Group

Strategic Structural Systems Engagement Experimental Group

Retention

Figure 1: Differential Engagement and Retention Rates for Strategic

Structural Systems Engagement Experimental Group andEngagement-as-Usual Control Group

3 This st udy wa s funde d b y NIDA grant #DA0322.



9

by adoles cent s were highly significant an d

these improvements were not significantly

different across th e engagement conditions.

The critical distinction between th e con-

ditions was in the rates o f par ticipation

and completion.

A sec ond m ajor finding of the p roject

(Szapoczn ik et al., 1988) was t he ide ntifi-cation of a numbe r of resistant family

types and the d evelopment of interven-

tion st rategies for e ngaging the se families

(Szapocznik and Kurtines, 1989).

Replication Study

An ad ditional study5 was des igned t o repli-

cate th ese findings and to further explore

the elements of effective interventions

(Santisteb an e t al., 1996). This st udy, which

included a large multicultural s ample, dem-

onstr ated t he overall effectiveness of the

specialized engagement inter ventions dis-

cussed abo ve. Significant d ifferences inrates of engagement were found between

the treatment group and the control group.

In the treatme nt group, 81 percent of the

families were successfully brought intotreatme nt. In contr ast, 60 percent of the

families ass igned to th e two c ontrol groups

were succes sfully brought into treat ment.

In addition to inves tigating the over all effec-

tiveness of the specialized engagement

intervention, the st udy also investigated

the influence o f culture/e thnicity on the

multicultura l Hispanic samp le. The d ata

suggested var ying rates of engagement

acros s Hispa nic groups. Among the n on-Cuban Hispanics (primarily Nicaraguan, but

also including Colombian, Puerto Rican,

Peruvian, and Mexican) as signed to the

treatment group, the rate of intervention

failure was extrem ely low (3 percen t). Fully

97 percent of the n on-Cuban Hisp anic fami-

lies were successfully treated. In contrast,

among the Cuban Hispanic sample ass igned

to the treat ment group, the rate of inter ven-

tion failure was relatively high at 36 percent ,

with 64 per cent o f the Cuba n Hispan ic

families succe ssfully treat ed.

Comparing StructuralFamily Therapy WithOther Types of TherapyEarlier research concentrated on the de-

velopment, refinemen t, and tes ting of

BSFT theor y and s trat egies. The next

challenge was to com pare th e relative

effect ivenes s of BSFT with t hat of othe r

widely used clinical interventions. Two

such studies are des cribed below.

BSFT Versus IndividualPsychodynamic ChildTherapy

The first stud y6 compare d th e effective-

ness of a str uctur al family ther apy group

(Minuc hin, 1974; Minuch in and Fish man ,

1981) with a n individual ch ild th erap y

group and a recr eational activity contro l

group for children with beha vior prob-

lems. In ad dition, this stu dy investigated

the mechanisms for ch ange used by each

type of ther apy. Both t heore tical ap-

proach es assu me underlying causes of

symptoms an d try to eliminate or reduce

symptoms. However, each form of therapy

uses a different app roach to reducing

symptoms . The individual child a pproach

postulates that the child’s internal (i.e.,

emotional, cognitive) functioning needs tobe mod ified to eliminate the s ymptoms.

BSFT, on the oth er ha nd, post ulates th at

family interactions need to be modified

to eliminate the symptoms. Because of

these important theoretical differences,

this stud y explored th e impact of each

form of thera py on child psychod ynamic

functioning and family interactions.

The analysis revealed se veral impor tant

findings. First, memb ers o f the rec reationa l

activity (contro l) group were significant ly

more likely to drop out th an member s of

the two treatm ent conditions, with more

than two-thirds o f dropouts belonging tothe c ontrol group. Second, th e two forms

of thera py were eq ually effective in reduc

ing behavior and em otional problems.

A third finding demonstr ated t he greater

effectiveness of BSFT over child th erapy in

protecting family integrity in the long term(see figure 2). In this study, psychodynami

ther apy was found to be effective in reduc

ing symptoms an d improving child psycho

dynamic functioning, but it was also foundto result in undes irable det erioration of

family interactions. The findings sup port e

the BSFT assum ption tha t treat ing the

whole family is impor tant b ecause it re-

duces the symptoms and protects th e fam

ily, versus treating just th e ch ild, which ma

cause family interac tions to de teriorate.

Structural Family Therapy

Versus Group CounselingA secon d c linical trial compared the effe

tiveness of BSFT with that of a cont rol

condition delivered in a group format

(Santisteban et a l., 1996). This st udy a lso

investigated whethe r ch anges in family

functioning were respo nsible for t he

changes obser ved in youth beh avior.

Yout h wh o re ceived BSFT showed signifi

cantly greater improvement in beh avior

(p<.05) than youth assigned to group cou

seling. In fact, youth in BSFT showed sign

ficant improvements in conduct disorder

and s ocialized aggress ion, while youth in

group counseling did not.

Figure 2: Comparison of Family Functioning at Pretest, Posttest, and

1-Year Followup for Youth Assigned to Brief Strategic FamilyTherapy, Individual Child Therapy, and Recreational Control

Group

Note: The three points on each line designate the following events: pretest, posttest,and 1-year followup, in that order.

5 This s tud y was fund ed b y NIDA grant #DAO5334.

6 This st udy wa s funde d by NIMH grant #DA34821.

Level of Fam

ily Functioning*

15

16

17

18

Timepoint

Brief StrategicFamily Therapy

Control Group

Individual ChildTherapy

14

*Numbers on this axis reflect the family’s functioning on five dimensions of family interaction.Higher numbers represent healthier, more adaptive family functioning.



10

A Structural Approachto Changing the SocialContext of FamiliesAs th e need s of families ch ange, the

the oret ical and clinical work of the Cen-

ter for Family Studies continues to

evolve. The Center h as expand ed andadjusted its interventions in response to

dec lining inner -city social cond itions, the

multiple prob lems faced by m inority

families, and the complex contextual fac-

tors t hat affect beh avior problems. The

Center is developing a struct ural ap-

proach for ch anging the social context of

families th at wor ks mor e effectively with

minority youth with beh avior pr oblems

and their families.

Theoretical Background

The Center for Family Stud ies us es

the theoretical work of Bronfenbrenner(1977, 1979, 1986) and the multisystemic,

ser vice-oriented approa ch o f Henggeler a nd

colleagues ( Henggeler an d Borduin, 1990;

Henggeler, Melton , and Smith, 1992).

Bronfenbrenner examined the complexity

of contexts, espe cially the re lationships

between various systems th at affect an

individual. In do ing so, he iden tified a nd

defined “microsystems” as those systems

that h ave direct contact with th e individual.

For a child, microsys tems include the family,

scho ol, and pe ers . He defined “mesos ys-

tems” as those systems that occur when

microsyste ms intera ct. One example of a

mesosystem occurs when the parents and

scho ol collaborat e on a child’s educ ation.

Another example of a mes osystem occur s

when parents and peer s interact (e.g., when

parents organize and sup ervise peer a ctivi-

ties). “Exosystem s” are defined a s th ose

system s that affect family memb ers an d,

throu gh their impac t on family memb ers,

affect the child. Examples of exosyst ems

are a mother ’s workplace or h er natural

suppor t network.

Bronfenbrenner’s theor y highlights the

pivotal role of cont ext in th e life of a

child and her o r his family memb ers.

Moreover, this t heor y helps to explain

how culture influences all other social

contexts and provides a framework for

developing culturally s ensitive interven-

tions that take into account the comp lex

influence that cultural factors have on

minority families.

Most of the cur rent work at the Center

for Family Stud ies reflects an increas ing

under stand ing of ecosyste mic influences

on youth beha vior p roblems. In fact,

several ongoing ecosystemic prevention

and intervention projects are b eingimplemented in schools and neighbor -

hood s to addre ss ch ildren’s beh avior

pro blems . In place of a review of each of

these p rograms, one program th at exem-

plifies the e cosystem ic philosop hy is de-

scribed below.The Family Alliance Project. 7 The Fam-

ily Alliance Pro ject s tud y is invest igat-

ing the e ffectiveness of ecosys temic

family thera py compa red with tra di-tional family ther apy and a co mmun ity

control group. The experimental inter-

vention, structur al ecosystems ther apy,

organizes the life context of the dru g-

abu sing youth using Bronfenbre nner ’s

social ecology framework and the theo-

retical p rinciples o f BSFTthat is, p at-

terns of interaction are examined withinand o uts ide the family. Stru ctur al eco-

systems therap y includes a full dose of BSFT (e.g., alliance , hiera rch y, com mu ni-

cation flow, personal and subsystem

boundar ies, developmental s tage, iden-

tified pa tient, conflict re solution s tyle,

and abilities). However, interven tions go

beyond t he family to t arget other cri t i-

cal youth intera ctions. In par ticular, the

youth’s relationships with school au-

thori t ies and p rosocial versus antisocial

peers are examined. At the mesosystem

levels, the relat ionships between pa r-

ents and s chool, parents and t heir

children’s peers , and parents and the

juvenile just ice system are cons idered.

At th is mesosyste m level, the extent towhich the different system s sup port one

anothe r, or are in co nflict with one an-

oth er, is cr itical. For e xample, in the

parents -peers meso system, parents may

know the peer s, organize super vised

peer a ctivi t ies, and know the parents of

their ch ild’s p eers. Parents may par t ici-

pate in community organizations that

provide organized, super vised peer

activities.

Results of the inter ventions suggest that

i t is possible to a ffect youth conduct

problems at home and school by correct-

ing patterns of inter action in the familyand sc hool microsystems a nd the family-

school mesosystem; reducing youth drug

abuse also requires improving inter-

actions in the p eer microsystem and

family-peer meso syste m.

ConclusionIn t he evolution of BSFT, the Center for Fam

ily Studies h as sou ght to integrate th eor

app lication, and research . The Center ’s wor

began in the 1970’s to addres s an issue of

growing concern: promoting culturally

competent therapists and therapies to ad

dress b ehavior and drug abuse problems

amon g Miami’s Hispanic youth. Since th e

the Center has ach ieved important b reak

throughs in assessment, engagement, trea

ment, and p revention, which have provide

a solid founda tion from which to pur sue ne

advanc es in th e field. Refineme nt of str uc

tur al family the or y stra tegies and goals in

BSFT, in turn , enab led th e Center to m odif

these s trategies to achieve the same goal

without h aving the ent ire family in th erap

thus making one-person family therap y pos

sible. Changing family intera ctions by wor

ing primar ily with one person led to a break

thro ugh in e ngaging ha rd-to-reach familiein treatment.

The wor k of th e Center for Family Stud ie

will help ther apists de velop new strate-

gies t o su ppor t minor ity families. As th e

nee ds of families ch ange, work in the fiel

needs to continue to evolve to address

the multiple p roblems minority families

will continue to confront. The Center op e

ates under the assump tion that “it takes

village to r aise a c hild.” It is nec essa ry

bot h to create a “village,” or comm unity,

that can support healthy child develop-

ment and to mod ify policies an d s ystems

that provide ser vices to the community.Bronfenbrenner (1979) wrote, “Seldom is

atten tion paid to the pers on’s beha vior in

more than one setting or t o th e way in

which relations b etween se ttings can af

fect what hap pen s within them” (p. 18).

He su ggested t hat an individual’s en viron

ment is compos ed of a complex set of

nested struc tures. Scientists involved in

intervention must cons ider the social and

cultural context in which treate d families

live. The Center for Family Stud ies’ devel-

opment of theory, research, and ser vices

within the com plex community is bas ed

on th is priority.

ReferencesBronfenbre nne r, U. 1977. Toward an ex-

per imental ecology of human develop-ment. American Psychologist 32:513–531.

Bronfenbre nne r, U. 1979. The Ecology of

Human Development. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

7 This study was or iginally funded as a t reatmen t de-

velopment p roject by Center for Substance Abuse

Treatment grant #1 HD7 TI00417; it is currently funded

by NIDA grant #1 RO1 DA10574.



11

Bronfenbre nne r, U. 1986. Ecology of t he

family as a co ntext for human develop-

ment: Research perspectives. Develop-

mental Psychology 22(6):723–742.

Haley, J. 1976. Problem -Solving Therapy.

San Franc isco, CA: Joss ey-Bass.

Henggeler, S.W., an d Bordu in, C.M. 1990.Family Therapy and Beyond: A Multi-

systemic Approach to Treating the Be-

havior Problems of Children and Adoles-

cents. Pac ific Grove, CA: Brooks /Cole.

Henggeler, S.W., Melton , G.B., and Smith ,

L.A. 1992. Family p res er vation using

multisystemic th erap y: An e ffective alter -

native to incarcer ating serious juvenile

offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clini-

cal Psychology 60:953–961.

Madanes, C. 1981. Strategic Family

Therapy. San Francisc o, CA: Joss ey-Bass.

Mancilla, Y., and Szapo czn ik, J. 1994. AManual for a Community Based, Multifam-

ily Strategic Structural System s Interven tion

for Strengthen ing Hispanic Imm igrant Fami-

lies of Behavior Problem Adolescents at

Risk for Gang Involvement. Technical Re-

port. Miami, FL: University of Miami,

Spanish Family Guidan ce Cente r.

Minuch in, S. 1974. Families and Family

Therapy. Cambr idge, MA: Har vard Univer-

sity Press.

Minuchin, S., and Fishman, H.C. 1981.

Family Therapy Techniques. Cambridge,

MA: Har vard Univers ity Pres s.Minuch in, S., Rosma n, B.L., and Baker, L.

1978. Psychosomatic Families: Anorexia

Nervosa in Context. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Santiste ban , D.A., Szapo cznik, J., Perez-

Vidal, A., Kurtines, W.M., Murray, E.J., and

LaPer riere , A. 1996. Engaging b eh avior

problem drug abusing youth and th eir

families into treatment: An investigation

of the efficacy of spe cialized e ngagement

interventions and factors that contr ibute

to differential effectiveness. Journal o f

Family Psychology 10(1):35–44.

Szapo czn ik, J., and Kurt ines , W.M. 1989.

Breakthroughs in Family Treatment. NewYor k, NY: Spr inge r.

Szapo czn ik, J., and Kurt ines , W.M. 1993.

Family psychology and cultural diversity:Opportunities for theory, research and

application. American Psychologist

48(4):400–407.

Szapocznik, J., Kurtines, W.M., Foote, F.,

Perez-Vidal, A., and Hervis, O.E. 1983.

Conjoint versus one person family

therap y: Some evidence for the effect ive-

nes s o f conducting family therap y through

one person. Journal of Consulting and Clini-

cal Psychology 51:889–899.

Szapo czn ik, J., Kur tine s, W.M., Foote, F.,

Per ez-Vida l, A., and Hervis , O.E. 1986.

Conjoint versus o ne per son family

ther apy: Furth er evidence for th e effec-

tiveness o f conducting family ther apy

through one person. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology 54:395–397.

Szapocznik, J., Kurtines, W.M., Perez-

Vidal, A., Her vis, O.E., and Foote , F. 1990.

One per son family therap y. In Handbook

of Brief Psychotherapies, edite d b y R.A.

Wells an d V.A. Giane tt i. New Yor k, NY:

Plenum , pp . 493–510.

Szapocznik, J., Perez-Vidal, A., Brickman,

A.L., Foote, F.H., Sant ist eb an , D.A., Her vis,

O.E., and Kur tine s, W.H. 1988. Engaging

adolescent drug abusers and their fami-lies into treat ment: A str ategic struct ural

systems approach. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology 56: 552–557.

Szapo czn ik, J., Per ez-Vida l, A., Her vis,

O.E., Brickma n, A.L., an d Kur tine s, W.M.

1990. Inno vations in Family Ther apy:

Overcoming Resistan ce to Treatment .

Handbook of Brief Psychotherapy, edited

by R.A. Wells and V.A. Gianetti. New York,

NY: Plenu m, p p. 93–114.

Szapocznik, J., Rio, A.T., Murray, E.J.,

Cohen, R., Scope tt a, M.A., Rivas -Vas qu ezA., Her vis, O.E., Posa da , V., and Kur tine s

W.M. 1989. Stru ctu ral family vers us ps y-

chodynamic child therapy for problem-

atic Hispa nic boys. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology 57(5):571–578.

Szap ocznik, J., Sant isteb an, D., Kur tines ,W.M., Perez-Vidal, A., and Hervis, O.E.

1984. Bicultur al Effectivenes s Training

(BET): A treatm ent intervent ion for en-

hancing intercultural adjustment. His-

panic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

6(4):317–344.

Szapo czn ik, J., San tist eb an , D., Rio, A.T.,

Per ez-Vidal, A., and Kur tine s, W.M. 1986a

Family Effectivenes s Tra ining for Hisp an

families: Strategic Structural Systems In-

ter vention for th e Prevention of Drug

Abuse. In Cross Cultural Training for Men

tal Health Profession als, edite d b y H.P.

Lefley and P.B. Pedersen. Springfield, IL:Char les C. Thomas .

Szapoc znik, J., Santist eban, D., Rio, A.T.,

Pere z-Vidal, A., Kur tines, W.M., and Hervis

O.E. 1986b. Bicultura l effectiveness trainin

(BET): An int er vention mod ality for familie

experiencing intergenerat ional/intercultur

conflict. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral

Sciences 8(4):303–330.

Szapo czn ik, J., San tist eb an , D., Rio, A.T.,

Per ez-Vidal, A., and Kur tine s, W.M. 1989.

Family effectiveness training: An interve

tion to prevent p roblem beh aviors in His

panic adolescents. Hispan ic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 11:4–27.

Szap ocznik, J., Scopet ta, M.A., Aran alde,

M.A., and Kur tine s, W.M. 1978. Cuban

value s truct ure: Clinical implications.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol

ogy 46(5):961–970.

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin was written by Michael S. Robbins, Ph.D., Research AssistantProfessor, and José Szapocznik, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Center for Family

Studies, Affiliation University of Miami School of Medicine, Department of

Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences.

Photograph page 2 copyright © 1999 Artville; photograph page 5 copyright © 1999

PhotoDisc, Inc.

Points of view or op inions expres sed in this

document are those of the authors and do no

neces sarily represent the official position or

policies o f OJJDP or t he U.S. Depa rtm ent of

Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin

quency Prevention is a component of the Of

fice of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, an d the Office for Victims o f Crime.



PRESORTED STANDAR

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 179285Bulletin

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

brief strategic family therapy

Documents