Solution-Focused Brief Therapy

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wswg20

Social Work With Groups

ISSN: 0160-9513 (Print) 1540-9481 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wswg20

Grandparents Raising Grandchildren: A Solution- Focused Brief Therapy Approach in School Settings

W. Sean Newsome PhD & Michael Kelly MSW

To cite this article: W. Sean Newsome PhD & Michael Kelly MSW (2005) Grandparents Raising Grandchildren: A Solution-Focused Brief Therapy Approach in School Settings, Social Work With Groups, 27:4, 65-84, DOI: 10.1300/J009v27n04_06

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1300/J009v27n04_06

Published online: 08 Sep 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 914

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Grandparents Raising Grandchildren: A Solution-Focused Brief Therapy

Approach in School Settings

W. Sean Newsome Michael Kelly

ABSTRACT. Over the last decade, grandparents have increasingly taken on the role of primary caregiver for their grandchildren. In fact, re- search of school principals in some urban communities report that 30% to 70% of their students live with grandparents or other relatives at some point in their lives. As a resource to many grandparents, social work practitioners in schools are in a unique position to assist this vulnerable, but valuable population. With such considerations, this article has three purposes. The first purpose seeks to sensitize social workers to some of the adversities and prospects faced by grandparents raising grandchil- dren. The second purpose seeks to provide an overview of current solu- tion focused brief therapy (SFBT) group work in facilitating and using the model with at-risk populations. The third and final purpose seeks to advance the work done by SFBT researchers and practitioners on using the model with primary caregivers. We then describe and recommend an eight-week SFBT group with grandparents and highlight the key compo- nents of each week’s focus. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

W. Sean Newsome, PhD, is Assistant Professor and Michael Kelly, MSW, is a doc- toral candidate, Jane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois at Chi- cago, Chicago, IL 60607-7134.

Social Work with Groups, Vol. 27(4) 2004 Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/SWG

 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J009v27n04_06 65

KEYWORDS. Grandparents, caregiving, SFBT, group work

INTRODUCTION

Grandparents have increasingly taken on the role of raising their grandchildren. A national study, based on 1992-94 survey data, found that 10.9% of grandparents reported having primary responsibility for raising a grandchild for six months or more at some point during their life (Fuller-Thomson, Minkler and Driver, 1997). Most recently, Cen- sus Bureau statistics revealed that 4.5 million children are living in households headed by grandparents (Davies, 2002). Of these house- holds, the fastest growing group was skipped-generation families in which the children’s parents were not present (Casper and Bryson, 1998).

The increase in grandparents raising grandchildren has been attributed to a number of social concerns. Foremost are traumatic events that often lead to parental absence or one’s inability to parent. As such, factors such as drug or alcohol addiction, incarceration, homicide and AIDS represent some of the leading issues contributing to this new trend (Fuller-Thomson and Minkler, 2000; Pruchno, 1999). Along these same lines, factors such as teen pregnancy, divorce, domestic violence and mental illness have re- sulted in imminent concerns affecting the trend of grandparents raising grandchildren (Fuller-Thomson and Minkler, 2000; Jendrek, 1993; Kelley, Whitley, Sipe and Yorker, 2000). As a result of these factors, school princi- pals in some communities report 30% to 70% of their students live with grandparents or other relatives at some point in their lives (Minkler and Roe, 1993).

In reaction to these trends, there has been increasing attention to the needs of grandparents raising grandchildren. Over the last decade, studies have documented the challenges these families face and the social service interventions developed to address their concerns (Burton, 1992; Pruchno, 1999; Minkler and Roe, 1993). In most cases, the interventions addressing grandparents raising grandchildren have been staffed by pro- fessionals and organizations external to the school system (Dannison and Smith, 2003; Grant, Gordon and Cohen, 1997; Rogers and Henkin, 2000). However, given the complexity of the issue and its potential im- pact on the adjustment and performance of children cared for by grand- parents, professionals in K-12 settings must begin to address this important issue.

66 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

A group of professionals who can begin to address the complex issue of grandparents raising grandchildren are social work practitioners in K-12 settings. As part of the school system, social work practitioners in K-12 settings are placed in a unique position for on-going work with grandparents and their grandchildren. Specifically, social workers in K-12 settings are positioned to identify grandparents raising grandchil- dren as well as raise awareness of the issues faced by these care provid- ers. In addition, social workers in school systems are expected to develop support groups that address the multitude of needs presented by vulnerable and underserved populations.

From an intervention standpoint, a practical and perhaps effective group approach in addressing the needs of grandparents raising grand- children in K-12 settings is solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT). In particular, the use of SFBT grandparent groups may provide these care providers with the opportunity to present their strengths, shed light on their “old” world wisdom, and reenact for a second time their parenting role. As a result, the advantages of using SFBT may provide grandpar- ents with an optimistic picture of the future and the self-reliance neces- sary in addressing the needs presented by their grandchildren.

With the aforementioned considerations, this article has three pur- poses. First, it seeks to sensitize social workers in K-12 settings to some of the adversities and prospects faced by grandparents raising grand- children. Second, it seeks to provide an overview of current SFBT group work as well as provide considerations in facilitating and using the model with at-risk and vulnerable populations. Third, it seeks to ad- vance the work done by Selekman (1991, 1993, 1999) and Seligman and Petersons (2004) on identifying signature strengths when working with primary caregivers. As such, the article describes the nature of an eight-week SFBT group with grandparents and highlights the key components of each week’s focus.

GRANDPARENTS RAISING GRANDCHILDREN: ADVERSITIES, PROSPECTS, AND “PRACTICAL WISDOM”

The process of becoming a grandparent raising a grandchild is often a protracted and painful one that results from a traumatic event. In fact, many grandparents do not ask for this new role, instead it is thrust upon them as they approach or live out their “golden years.” In the United States, the prevalence of grandparents raising grandchildren has reached alarming rates. In the last decade, the United States Census Bu-

W. Sean Newsome and Michael Kelly 67

reau found that 3.9 million grandparents were raising their grandchil- dren and that as many as 3.75 million grandchildren under the age of 18 were living in the home of their grandparent or grandparents (Casper and Bryson, 1998).

In their expanded new role, grandparents are faced with a myriad of daily, weekly and monthly obstacles that must be negotiated and managed on behalf of their grandchildren. One of the more common areas that grandparents raising grandchildren must suddenly take on the responsibil- ity of is the educational system (Waldrop and Weber, 2001). The impor- tance of managing this system is vital, given the potential impact the school-home interface may have on grandparents as well as grandchildren. In fact, research over the last two decades has documented the importance of the school-home interface between parent involvement and student achievement (Epstein, 1995). Benefits for students include lower drop out rates (Rumberger, 1995), fewer suspensions (Comer and Haynes, 1992) and greater enrollment in postsecondary education (Kellaghan et al., 1993).

Equally important, educators and researchers have recognized the potential impact of parent participation on parents themselves. For ex- ample, when parents are involved in the educational endeavors of their children, parents develop an increased sense of self-efficacy (Davies, 1993), an increased understanding of school programs (Epstein, 1996), and greater appreciation of the role they play in their child’s education (Davies, 1993). However, despite the positive advantages of having parents participate in the educational endeavors of their own children, grandparents may be ambivalent about assuming this role in school set- tings. They may lack role models and sources of information for dealing with the school and may feel overwhelmed with the logistical details of dealing with the various types of services in K-12 settings (Pelt, 2001).

On the other hand, these new responsibilities and adversities provide grandparents raising grandchildren with an opportunity to reenact their role as parent and primary care provider (Cox, 2000). This is particu- larly important for grandparents of adult children with problems such as substance abuse, incarceration, and mental illness. In Minkler and Roe’s (1993) study of grandmothers raising the children of sub- stance-involved parents, grandparents described their new role “as a ‘second chance’ to ‘raise kids right’ ” (p. 127). Similarly, some grand- parents said they viewed their activities as a way to demonstrate love and concern for their own adult child, whom they could help in no other way (Minkler and Roe, 1993).

For other grandparents who have removed their grandchildren from an uncertain situation there is a sense of relief knowing that their grand-

68 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

children are safe (Baird, John, and Hayslip, 2000; Minkler and Roe, 1993). Indeed, both African-American and White/Caucasian grandpar- ents raising grandchildren reported a greater purpose in life by provid- ing a more caring and safe environment for their grandchildren (Jendrek, 1993; Minkler and Roe, 1993; Pruchno, 1999). Within the Af- rican-American community, research has found that women may derive special meaning from their fulfillment of a cultural legacy, with grand- mothers serving as caregivers who are “keeping the family together” (Minkler and Roe, 1993). With such considerations, primary caregiving for grandchildren can provide a productive, meaningful new role to many grandparents (Giarusso et al., 2000).

Lastly, and perhaps even more compelling, is that grandparents rais- ing grandchildren bring practical wisdom to their new role. As such, grandparents can draw on their previous life experiences raising their adult child in addressing the complex issues of becoming a second-time parent. Drawing on these previous life experiences make grandparents raising grandchildren prime resources for solution-focused practice in- terventions that emphasize client strengths and resourcefulness.

SFBT Group Practice

Group practice may offer the most advantageous modality for ad- dressing the adversities and prospects faced by grandparents. Groups allow for the development of mutual aid and support among those in similar circumstances and make efficient use of potential time con- straints for social work practitioners in K-12 settings (Essex, Newsome and Moses, 2004). Researchers and practitioners have documented the use of psycho-educational support groups, educational workshops, and classroom formats with this population (Burnette, 1998; Cohen and Pyle, 2000; Cox, 2002; Rogers and Henkin, 2000). Along these same lines, the use of a specific model such as SFBT may offer social work practitioners in school settings an optimal group approach that helps to facilitate the continued growth of grandparents raising grandchildren.

Beyond the most recent and positive developments of SFBT in school settings (Franklin et al., 2001; Newsome, 2004; Watkins and Kurtz, 2001; Thompson and Littrell, 1998), the SFBT group model helps to cre- ate new meanings, perceptions and solutions with group participants (Coe and Zimpfer, 1996; Lafountain and Garner, 1996, Lafountain, Gar- ner and Eliason, 1996). Group practitioners using SFBT in school set- tings look to emphasize what individual members are already doing well, or have the potential to do well, as a way to facilitate goal achievement

W. Sean Newsome and Michael Kelly 69

among all group participants (Banks, 1999; Lafountain, Garner, and Elison, 1996; Selekman, 1999; Vaughn, Hastings-Guerrero, and Kassner, 1996). Similarly, SFBT with parental and primary care-giving groups seek to utilize the strengths presented by its members while also shifting beliefs and unproductive interactions they have with their children (Selekman, 1999).

To achieve such proactive change, many SFBT practitioners structure group sessions so that they (1) utilize the resources and strengths presented by individual group members, (2) recognize that change, particularly posi- tive change by individuals is inevitable, (3) focus on a present and future orientation, (4) are cooperative and collaborative, (5) point out that prob- lems are not solved, but rather solutions are considered, (6) discuss excep- tions to problems that then become the building blocks for solutions, and (7) are goal-directed and goal driven (Berg, 1994, Lafountain and Garner, 1996, Lafountain, Garner and Eliason, 1996).

From a practice standpoint, client potential is discovered through the use of purposeful language and questioning. Since the model’s incep- tion, SFBT practitioners in various settings with various clients readily assert the importance of language, dialogue and questions as a way to help build and uncover strengths in clients (Fish, 1997; Franklin et al., 2001; Geil, 1998; Greene, Lee Mentzer, Pinnel, and Niles, 1998; Kral, 1995; Metcalf, 1995; Thompson and Littrell, 1998). Indeed, de Shazer (1994), in his clinical trails of SFBT, found that purposeful, goal ori- ented questions resulted in client recognition of possible solutions. Ac- cordingly, questions such as the miracle question, scaling question, relationship question and the exception-finding question, seek to em- phasize client strengths and exceptions to problem situations. Such questions, according to de Shazer (1994), encourage clients to reinter- pret their options in life while also providing them with an opportunity to assess their own future.

In practice, the use of purposeful, goal-oriented questions might take on the following form: Miracle Question: “Suppose that tonight, while you were asleep, there is a miracle and the problem that brought you here today has been solved. However, because you were asleep you were unaware that this miracle happened. Could you tell me, what would be different in the morning that would tell you a miracle has taken place?” Scaling Question: “On a scale form 1 to 10, with 1 being the least confident and 10 being most confident, where on the scale would you say you are now, and where on the scale would you like to be?” Additional techniques include the Relationship Question: “Who would notice that you had reached your goal on the scale? If a close

70 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

friend was here right now, what would he or she say about how reached your goal?” Exception-Finding Question: “Can you tell us when the is- sue that brought you here today was less of a problem?” As pointed out by Greene et al. (1998), such questions help clients develop an image without the problem as well as empower clients to recognize and build on their own strengths.

Solution-Focused Grandparent Groups

Many SFBT practitioners endorse a perspective that says it is possi- ble to effect change in clients both meaningfully and quickly. For many SFBT practitioners, this means limiting their clinical work to 6-10 ses- sions. As such, SFBT gives social work practitioners in K-12 settings an excellent opportunity to apply the model to as many grandparents as possible without overwhelming their traditional work in the school.

The group model discussed here is an 8-week GRG (grandparent raising grandchildren) “Solution Group.” The group would meet on school grounds, preferably at a time that most grandparents could at- tend. While it is not absolutely essential that GRGs be grouped homogenously, we suggest that novice SFBT practitioners try to imple- ment a group from a specific population first, to both learn the specific needs of GRGs and to apply and test SFBT ideas with them.

The groups have the following topics for each week: Week 1: Introductions and Orientation to SFBT GRG Ideas Week 2: Identifying your Signature Strengths as a Grandparent and Applying Them to Your Mission as a GRG Week 3: Starting Small: How Small Changes Can Become Big Solu- tions

(Note: The first three weeks are held consecutively; after that, GRG groups take place on a three-week/monthly basis to empha- size the belief that GRGs can both support each other and act cre- atively and effectively on their own, without the aid of “experts.”) (Selekman, 1993)

Week 4: What’s Already Working? Identifying Exceptions to Pre- senting GRG Parenting Problems Week 5: The “Doing Something Different Day:” Using SFBT Inter- ventions in Daily Life with Your grandchildren Week 6: Maintaining Change: Ways to Keep Change Going as a GRG

W. Sean Newsome and Michael Kelly 71

Week 7: GRG Wisdom Night: A Panel of Elders Share their Life Les- sons Week 8: Change Party: A Celebration of the Changes Already Made with the Help Of SFBT and those Changes to Come

Week 1: Introductions and Orientation

SFBT Technique: Sharing the SFBT Approach to Practice; Mobiliz- ing Around Small Changes and Grandparent Strengths.

As with any training or group offered to primary caregivers, the first session is crucial. Here we offer grandparents a chance to get to know us, the other members in the group and the basic tenets of the SFBT ap- proach. While it is likely that many GRGs will approach the first group with some nervousness and/or anxiety (this may be the first time such a GRG group has been convened, and they may feel self-conscious about that), it is important to normalize both their particular circumstances as GRGs as well as the need for collaborative problem-solving. Therefore, a primary function of session one is to emphasize the importance of change and the consistency of change. In addition, the SFBT practitio- ner must also acknowledge the inevitability of change and think in terms of their clients as being “stuck” and not “sick,” and the likelihood of “change” instead of “stagnation” (Davis and Osborn, 2000). As Selekman (1993) states, it is helpful to think when change will occur with clients, rather than if it will happen.

Similarly in session one, social workers in K-12 settings who are working from a SFBT approach should gain familiarity with GRGs and their story. By carefully gathering GRG’s “stories” in session one, we pay attention to their struggles, their successes and their problems. However, we are clear with our GRGs that even in their struggles and problems there is a hopeful solution to be discovered that lies outside problem explanations and conventional deficit-oriented thinking. With such considerations, the following questions may be used to help guide week one with grandparents:

• What is the most important part of the problem that brought you here?

• What part of that problem would you like to work on first? • What is/are your thought(s) about the problem you’re having with

your grandchild? • What is the one thing you would like to learn as it relates to this

problem from this group?

72 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

Week 2: Identifying Grandparents’ Signature Strengths and Applying Them to Their “New” Role as Caregivers

SFBT Technique: Identifying Personal Strengths and Creating New Options

Most GRGs have a wealth of strengths and qualities. For many, there is the love, understanding and passion they have for their grandchildren, the intrinsic understanding of hard-work, the patience needed in raising a child, the importance of being consistent, and the practical wisdom they have used in raising their own children. These strengths can be part of any primary caregivers’ makeup; however, what makes GRGs dis- tinct in this endeavor is their experience practicing these strengths over time. Many GRGs have also had these strengths tested and perhaps am- plified by their experiences in K-12 settings. Unlike other grandparents, they have not only demonstrated their strengths with their own children, but also uncovered new ways to cope as a primary caregiver to their grandchildren. We believe that GRGs have done this by utilizing their signature strengths.

Seligman and Peterson (2004) offer a taxonomy of strengths and virtues to complement the conventional ideas of psychopathology documented and measured in the DSM-IV. The Values in Action Questionnaire (VIA) is an instrument that Seligman and Peterson (in press) are currently offer- ing to educators to help children, teachers, and parents identify their five “signature strengths.” We propose administering the VIA in our second session with GRGs to help them identify their signature strengths. Then, in written exercises and discussion, we ask them to analyze where they may be applying their strengths as a primary caregiver to their grandchildren.

Recently the benefits of using the VIA was found to be quite helpful with a GRG who had become the primary caregiver of her grandchil- dren. As such, the grandparent stated to the second author that she was hesitant to use her artistic and imaginative ability with her grandchil- dren (drawing, painting, building things, making games out of chores) because her daughter had raised them much more rigorously and harshly before she passed away. Through the use of the VIA and a dis- cussion that helped the grandparent identify her signature strengths, the GRG recognized that she could still honor her daughter’s memory while also applying her creativity with her grandchildren. With such consider-

W. Sean Newsome and Michael Kelly 73

ations pertaining to “signature strengths,” the following questions as well as the VIA may be used to help guide week two with grandparents:

• What are your signature strengths as a grandparent raising your grandchild?

• How do you use your signature strengths as a grandparent raising a grandchild?

Week 3: Starting Small: How Small Changes Can Become Big Solutions

SFBT Technique: Using “Exception-Talk” to Identify Proactive Change

Week three starts by teaching three key aspects of SFBT practice; (1) identify exceptions to problem situations, (2) mobilize resources around those exceptions to problem situations, and (3) mobilize re- sources around those exceptions. Each of these key aspects is then put into practice through the use of “exception-talk.” The power of excep- tion-talk helps clients identify times when the presenting problem was not always affecting them or when they felt more able to handle the problem (Berg, 1994).

In practice, social workers in school settings who use exception-talk must help GRGs view small changes as crucial to changing big prob- lems. The use of exception talk, therefore, seeks to provide the ingredi- ents and building blocks of solutions. Primarily, this is because SFBT practitioners recognize that conventional problem talk often robs peo- ple of the hope that they can affect change at all without some type of major intervention from outside sources.

In addition to setting the stage with exception-talk, we also acknowl- edge to our GRG group members that chronic and debilitating problems do exist. However, it is equally important to ask GRG group partici- pants the ways they and their grandchildren have coped and managed despite these debilitating problems. We then help to identify exceptions of when the problem was not so debilitating and then amplify these ex- ceptions. It is our belief that exceptions to these problems will increase hope and resilience that will produce positive outcomes and change over extended periods of time. Given the aforementioned consider- ations, the following questions may be used to help guide week three with grandparents:

74 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

• Since our group has started, what have you noticed that is already different about the main problem you came in with?

• What did you do to make those changes? What do you need to do to maintain those changes with your grandchild?

To help illustrate the use of the aforementioned questions, the following dialogue recently took place with a GRG during the group process:

Group Leader: Welcome back, everyone. Tonight we want to start by discussing a time in the last three weeks that the problem or problems affecting your grandchild were not so overwhelming, and what you did as a grandparent to help ease or lessen those problems. Do we have anybody who can share with us tonight?

Ms. Valdez: I will. I think my grandson is getting better at school.

Group Leader: Really? Tell us how you know that.

Ms. Valdez: Well, my grandson was having trouble on the play- ground, getting in fights and all that, and they called me in.

Group Leader: Who is “they” here you’re talking about?

Ms. Valdez: The school staff, they wanted him to stay off the play- ground.

Group Leader: And all that was because they didn’t think you’re grandson could handle being on the playground? Have you seen times when Juan could handle being on playgrounds with other kids?

Ms. Valdez: Yes, I told them “he’ll find his way,” we just have to pay attention. To prove it I went to school to watch him play on the playground. I saw that he was alone, and nobody was playing with him. I thought, “No wonder he’s getting in trouble, he’s trying to find any way possible to fit in.” I told him to go see if he could play soccer with some of the kids on the playground–he loves to play–and he did!

Group Leader: And you were able to show the school that some kids “can find their own way.” You recalled how much your grandson loved playing soccer, and you helped him get in a game. And all that fighting stuff on the playground went away.

W. Sean Newsome and Michael Kelly 75

Ms. Valdez: Yep. All it took was a little attention. That’s what these kids need, our attention.

The above practice vignette helps to highlight the use of how small changes can become big solutions. More importantly, the dialogue helps to illustrate how the group leader and Ms. Valdez uncovered an exception of how the problem (i.e., fighting on the playground) became less debilitating to her grandson (i.e., when he started playing soccer with other kids on the playground). Similarly, it helped to increase the hope and resilience of Ms. Valdez as a primary caregiver to her grand- son as she faces the many challenges and opportunities presented to her throughout the academic school year.

Week 4: What’s Already Working? Identifying Exceptions to Presenting GRG Care Giving Problems

SFBT Technique: Refinement of “Exception-Talk” and the Use of Self-Reports and the Scaling Question

The fourth group begins with some time devoted to asking and an- swering two SFBT questions; “What is better?” and “What further progress have you and your kids made?” (Selekman, 1993) The use of such questions, which emphasize ways GRG group members can act in the present to affect future behavior and experience, is a natural and respectful fit to their overall goals. In addition, such questions help to provide a seamless transition from week three by building on the ex- pectations of potential, proactive change rather than problematic is- sues that may never be resolved.

The use of the aforementioned questions proposed by Selekman (1993) helps to embrace the possibility of change and provides primary caregivers with the opportunity to share what is working. Such an approach, we be- lieve, is in direct contrast to the stereotype some individuals might have of grandparents in our culture. As such, the stereotype of a grandparent who is obsessed about the past and complains about the present is challenged with the use of the exception-talk. We also believe that the use of exception-talk empowers GRGs which, given their rich mixture of past-informed wisdom coupled with future-oriented optimism, aids in the daily task of being the primary caregiver to a grandchild.

As with all aspects of SFBT work, session four and the use of excep- tion-talk challenges the role of playing the “expert.” Rather, SFBT group leaders act as coaches, encouraging the group members to use their own “practical wisdom” to do more of the things that work. When done successfully, this approach is deeply respectful of client strengths

76 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

and, given the age and wisdom of GRGs, seems especially well suited to this population.

With the aforementioned considerations, the following questions may be used to help guide week four with grandparents:

If you can imagine our final meeting and being able to rate your prob- lem as being low, what will have changed between then and now? What is the first thing you might do as a grandparent raising a grandchild to make this change happen?

On a scale from 1-10 (with 1 being not coping at all with your new role and 10 being coping very well with your new role), how well would you say you are coping? What would be different in your life if you went from a 6 to a 7 or from a 7 to an 8?

To help illustrate the use of the scaling question as a way to find ex- ceptions, the following dialogue recently took place between the second author and a GRG during the group process:

Group Leader: O.K., tonight I would like you to think of some- thing you’ve been working on changing with your grandchild. It can be something you’ve been working on at home or at school. I want you to rate how well you think your grandchild has been do- ing on a scale from 1-10, with 1 being very poor and 10 being very excellent. Would anyone like to start us off?

Ms. Wilson: My granddaughter, she has been fighting with her older brother too much, especially when it’s time for them to get down to their schoolwork.

Group Leader: How would you rate her level of fighting with her brother in the last few weeks on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being very excessive and 10 being not excessive at all?

Ms. Wilson: You know I was thinking before you asked me. Early on, I would have said it was very excessive, I would have given her a 1, but lately I’d say she’s been making an effort. I think I would rate her at a 5, maybe a 6.

Group Leader: And that 5 or 6 is better than it was before?

Ms. Wilson: Oh yes! She was down around a 1 for too, too long.

Group Leader: What do you think brought her up from a 1 to 5?

Ms. Wilson: I’ve been just telling her to go to another room, and leaving it at that. I gave up yelling and cussing back at her–it didn’t work. Besides, doing this gives her nobody to talk to and soon after she shapes up and starts saying “grandma, I’ll be good, I promise.”

W. Sean Newsome and Michael Kelly 77

Group Leader: That’s great. So, your doing something different helps her decide to behave differently. What do you think needs to happen for your granddaughter to get to a 7 or 8?

Ms. Wilson: That would be amazing to see her at a 7 or 8. I think if she figures out that I’m serious about not letting her mess with her brother, she’ll calm down. I can see her getting to that 7 or 8 someday.

In this practice vignette, the group leader used the scaling question with Ms. Wilson as a way to recognize the proactive change that has occurred over the last few weeks. More than that, however, the scaling question helped to open up a discussion of the progress and growth made by her grandchild and Ms. Wilson. By using the scaling question, the group leader was also able to tap into Ms. Wilson’s practical wisdom in addressing a very common issue between two siblings.

Week 5: The “Doing Something Different Day”: Using SFBT Interventions in Daily Life with Your Grandchild

SFBT Technique: Co-Constructing Problem-Solving Ability and “Doing Something Different”

At this point in our groups, most GRGs are confident in their knowl- edge of SFBT techniques and are using them to identify new and cre- ative ways to handle opportunities and challenges. Still, GRGs report that some problems, though showing improvement, do not change enough. As a result of this, we offer the group a rich series of ideas from SFBT clinicians that encourage grandparents to “do something differ- ent.” We teach GRGs to use their signature strengths when considering the problem and to engage in spontaneous problem-solving so that they can address the issue from a different angle.

For example, a grandfather recently stated that he often got very frus- trated and angry when his grandchildren hit each other and did not listen to him to stop. His anger only escalated the situation, however, and did not produce more listening between him and his grandchildren. His so- lution was to do something different, and he began to use one of his sig- nature strengths of singing gospel songs when his grandchildren were not listening. To his surprise, his grandchildren not only stopped misbe- having, but they often came over to sing with him. After the song ended, he reported that they were usually calm enough to hear what he had to say and would then refrain from the behaviors that had upset him.

78 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

Given the aforementioned considerations, the following questions may be used to help guide week five with grandparents:

• What are two things you could do differently this week as a grand- parent raising a grandchild as it relates to your problem?

• What are a few impacts you might imagine happening as a result of “doing something differently?”

Week 6: Maintaining Change: Ways to Keep Change Going as a GRG and

Week 7: GRG Wisdom Night: A Panel of Elders Share Their Life Lessons

SFBT Techniques for Two Sessions: Magnifying Changes and ValiDating GRG’s Wisdom as Experts

Research has found that many grandparents have a stake in maintain- ing family connectedness across generations as well as a personal in- vestment in their grandchildren’s well-being (Casper and Bryson, 1998). However, because GRGs have made the commitment to raise family members who are much younger than they are, sometimes by 60 years or more, they are in effect seeking to use their wisdom to directly influence the future lives of their grandchildren. Week six and seven are companions, we believe, in maintaining, magnifying and validating GRGs’ wisdom as experts. As a result, we spend a lot of time during week six and week seven drawing on the wisdom of our grandparent group members. This begins by focusing on the life lessons GRGs have on being primary caregivers to their own children as well as their grand- children and the successful changes they have made in their own lives.

In addition to drawing on historical and present GRG wisdom, grand- parents who have previously benefited from SFBT group-work can also amplify and expand the role of other GRGs. We suggest, therefore, that social workers in school settings invite three or four grandparents from a previous SFBT group to join the existing group in week six and week seven. The purpose and advantage of bringing these GRGs to week six and seven is to share what they have learned since applying SFBT tech- niques in practice. As with the previous groups, emphasis is placed on how GRGs can identify the resilience and strength in their own life sto- ries to maintain and magnify their role of being a successful GRG.

Given such considerations, the following questions may be used to help guide week six and seven with grandparents:

• Looking back at your experience in this group at week one, what is different about your “parenting role?”

• Who in your life views you as a person who has wisdom to share?

W. Sean Newsome and Michael Kelly 79

Week 8: Change Party: A Celebration of the Changes Already Made and Those Changes to Come with the Help of SFBT

SFBT Technique: A Celebration of Change In keeping with the SFBT philosophy, we choose to deal with group

endings and termination issues by focusing on the positive aspects of the group. As a result, we have a “change party.” In using the change party technique, each GRG brings his/her grandchild to the group and shares one thing that has changed in the past three to four months as well as one strength that they most admire about each of their grandchildren (Each of the GRGs will have done a signature strength VIA with each of his/her grandchildren at this point, to have that instrument to draw on.) While the majority of this final group is spent socializing and having fun, we do encourage the GRGs to consider forming some kind of infor- mal network with us or other group members to help build on the posi- tive solutions and relationships that the group helped to foster.

With the aforementioned considerations, the following questions may be used to help guide week eight and the change party with grand- parents:

• What is new and powerful about you as a grandparent raising a grandchild? How can you maintain this new part of you as a grand- parent raising a grandchild?

• What have you learned about your grandchild’s strengths and ca- pacity to change?

• What is the most important lesson you learned in this group and who taught you this lesson?

CONCLUSION

This article has presented a rationale and template for forming an eight-week SFBT group intervention with grandparents raising grand- children. The nature of grandparents’ experiences and the heightened academic and emotional risks that their grandchildren may suffer make it critical that social work practitioners in K-12 settings reach out to this frequently misunderstood and underserved population. Moreover, the unique practical wisdom presented by grandparents blends well with the strength-based and fluid SFBT approach outlined in the SFBT group format.

80 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

Despite the eight-week group format that has been outlined, sessions two to eight are open to a variety of modifications and spontaneous pos- sibilities. As with many SFBT practitioners, social work practitioners in K-12 settings need to regularly modify their group syllabus to reflect the needs of grandparents and to allow maximum input around the changes they (i.e., the grandparents) want to build on in their new role. As such, the SFBT approach presented here places paramount emphasis on the perspectives of grandparents. It strives to fashion an environment where its group members can proceed to co-create their experience for the remaining seven sessions.

The SFBT approach presented may offer some promise as a time-sen- sitive, goal-oriented approach with grandparents. Social work practitio- ners in K-12 settings who operate from a solution-focused group perspective can help grandparents identify what they have learned from their past life experiences and how to use such experiences for the better- ment of their grandchildren. More important, it is hoped that the use of SFBT by social work practitioners in K-12 settings can help grandparents mobilize their potential ability into a powerful force of change for their grandchildren.

REFERENCES

Baird, A., John, R. and Hayslip, B. (2000). Custodial grandparents among African American: A focus group perspective. In B. Hayslip & Goldberg-Glen (Eds.), Grandparents raising grandchildren: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical perspec- tives (pp. 125-144). New York: Springer.

Banks, V. (1999). A solution-focused approach to adolescent groupwork. Family Ther- apy, 20, 78-82

Berg, I. K. (1994). Family based services: A solution-focused approach. New York: Norton & Company.

Burnette, D. (1998). Grandparents raising grandchildren: A school-based small group intervention. Research on Social Work Practice, 8, 10-27.

Burton, L. M. (1992). Challenges and rewards. African American grandparents as sur- rogate parents. Generations, 16, 51-54.

Casper, L. M. and Bryson, K. R. (1998). Co-resident grandparents and their grand- children: Grandparent maintained families. (Population Division Working Paper No. 26). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Coe, D. M. and Zimpfer, D. G. (1996). Infusing solution-oriented theory and tech- niques into group work. Journal of Specialists in Group Work, 21, 49-57.

Cohen, C. S. and Pyle, R. (2000). Support groups in the lives of grandmothers raising grandchildren. In C. B. Cox (Ed.), To grandmother’s house we go and stay: Per- spectives on custodial grandparents (pp. 235-252.). New York, NY: Springer.

W. Sean Newsome and Michael Kelly 81

Comer, J. P. and Haynes, N. M. (1992). Parent involvement in school: An ecological approach. The Elementary School Journal, 91, 271-278.

Cox, C. B. (2000). Why grandchildren are going to and staying at grandmother’s house and what happens when they get there. In C. B. Cox (Ed.), To grandmother’s house we go and stay: Perspectives on custodial grandparents (pp. 3-19). New York, NY: Springer.

Cox, C. B. (2002). Empowering African American custodial grandparents. Social Work, 47, 45-54.

Dannison, L. L. and Smith, A. B. (2003). Custodial grandparents community support program: Lessons learned: Children and Schools, 25, 87-95.

Davies, C. (2002). Kinship care state fact sheets: A resource for grandparents and other relatives raising grandchildren. AARP Research, 1-3

Davies, D. (1993). Benefits and barriers to parent involvement: From Portugal to Boston to Liverpool. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.). Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 205-216). Albany: State University of New York Press.

De Shazer, S. (1994). Words were originally magic. New York: Norton. Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for children we

share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712 Epstein, J. L. (1996). Perspectives and previews on research and policy for school,

family and community partnerships. In C. L. Fagnano & B. Z. Werber (Eds.). School, family and community interaction: A view for the firing lines (pp. 39-52). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Essex, E. L., Newsome, W. S. and Moses, H. (2004). Caring for grandparent-headed families: Challenges and opportunities for school social workers. School Social Work Journal, 28(2), 1-19

Fish, J. M. (1997). Paradox for complaints? Strategic thoughts about solution-focused therapy. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 16, 266-273.

Franklin, C. Biever, J., Moore, K., Clemons, D. and Scamardo, M. (2001). The effec- tiveness of solution-focused therapy with children in a school setting. Research on Social Work Practice, 11, 411-434.

Fuller-Thomson, E. and Minkler, M. (2000). America’s grandparent caregivers: Who are they? In B. Hayslip & Goldberg-Glen (Eds.), Grandparents raising grandchil- dren: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical perspectives (pp. 3-21). New York: Springer.

Fuller-Thomson, E., Minkler, M. and Driver, D. (1997). A profile of grandparents rais- ing grandchildren in the United States. The Gerontologist, 37, 406-411.

Geil, M. (1998). Solution-focused consultation: An alternative consultation model to manage student behavior and improve classroom environment. Unpublished doc- toral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Co.

Giarrusso, R., Silverstein, M. and Feng, D. (2000). Psychological costs and benefits of raising grandchildren: Evidence from a national survey of grandparents. In C. B. Cox (Ed.), To grandmother’s house we go and stay: Perspectives on custodial grandparents (pp. 71-90). New York, NY: Springer.

82 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

Grant, R., Gordon, S. G. and Cohen, S. T. (1997). An innovative school-based intergenerational model to serve grandparent caregivers. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 28, 47-61.

Greene, G. J., Lee, M. Y., Mentzer, R. A., Pinnel, S. A. and Niles, D. (1998). Miracles, dreams and empowerment: A brief Therapy practice of note. Families in Society, 79, 395-399

Jendrek, M. P. (1993). Grandparents who parent their grandchildren: Effects on life- style. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55, 609-621.

Kellaghan, T., Sloane, K., Alvarez, B. and Bloom, B. S. (1993). The home environment and school learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kelley, S. J., Whitley, D., Sipe, T.A. and Yorker, B. C. (2000). Psychological distress in grandmother kinship care providers: The role of resources, social support, and physical health. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(3), 381-389.

Kral, R. (1995). Strategies that work: Techniques for solutions in school. Milwaukee, WI: Brief Family Therapy Press.

LaFountain, R. M. and Garner, N. E. (1996). Solution-focused counseling groups: The results are in. Journal of Specialists in Group Work, 21, 128-143.

LaFountain, R. M. and Garner, N. E. and Eliason, G. T. (1996). Solution-focused coun- seling groups: A key for school counselors. School Counseling, 43, 256-267.

Metcalf, L. (1995). Counseling toward solutions: A practical solution-focused pro- gram for working with students, teachers and families. West Nyack, NY: The Cen- ter for Applied Research in Education.

Minkler, M. and Roe, K. M. (1993). Grandmothers as caregivers: raising children of the crack cocaine epidemic. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Newsome, W. S. (2004). Solution-focused brief therapy groupwork with at-risk junior high school students: Enhancing the bottom-line. Research on Social Work Prac- tice, 14, 336-343.

O’Hanlon, B. and Beadle, S. (1999). A guide to possibility land: Fifty-One methods for doing brief, respectful therapy. New York: Norton & Company.

Pelt, P. P. (2001). Grandparents raising grandchildren: A school nurse perspective. Re- flections, 7, 98-104.

Pruchno, R. (1999). Raising grandchildren: The experiences of black and white grand- mothers. The Gerontologist, 39, 209-221.

Rogers, A. and Henkin, N. (2000). School based interventions for children in kinship care. In B. Hayslip, Jr. and R. Goldberg-Glen (Eds.), Grandparents raising grand- children: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical perspectives (221-238). New York: Springer.

Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of stu- dents and school. American Education Research Journal, 32, 583-625.

Selekman, M. (1991). The solution-oriented parenting group: A treatment alternative that works. Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies, 10, 36-49.

Selekman, M. (1993). Pathways to change: Brief therapy solutions with difficult ado- lescents. New York: Guilford.

W. Sean Newsome and Michael Kelly 83

Selekman, M. (1999). The solution-oriented parenting group revisited. Journal of Sys- temic Therapies, 18, 5-23.

Thompson, R. and Littrell, J. M. (1998). Brief counseling for students with learning disabilities. Professional School Counseling, 2, 60-67.

Vaughn, K., Hastings-Guerrero, S. and Kassner, C. (1996). Solution-oriented inpatient group therapy. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 15, 1-14.

Waldrop, D. P. and Weber, J. A. (2001). From grandparents to caregiver: The stress and satisfaction of raising grandchildren. Families in Society, 82, 461-473.

Watkins, A. M. and Kurtz, P. D. (2001). Using solution-focused intervention to address African American male overrepresentation in special education: A case study. Chil- dren & Schools, 23, 223-235.

MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED: 04/27/04 MANUSCRIPT REVISED: 10/06/04

MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED: 12/06/04

84 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

To request single articles from Haworth, visit www.HaworthPress.com/journals/dds.asp.You can order single articles here directly from Haworth or through Rightslink . We have over 40,000 articles ready for immediate delivery, and you can find articles by title, by author name, by keyword, and more!

®