Social work theory · Volume H: Integrative & Practice-Oriented
Solution-focused brief therapy
Solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) is a future-oriented, goal-directed approach that helps clients build solutions by describing the life they want and identifying what they are already doing that works.
1. What it is
Solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) is a future-oriented, goal-directed approach that helps clients build solutions by describing the life they want and identifying what they are already doing that works. It was developed by Steve de Shazer, Insoo Kim Berg and colleagues at the Brief Family Therapy Center in Milwaukee from the late 1970s (de Shazer, 1985; de Shazer et al., 1986). Its central premise is that constructing solutions does not require a detailed understanding of how a problem arose. Practitioners therefore spend little time on problem history and more on clients’ goals, strengths and past successes. Clients are regarded as experts on their own lives, and change is assumed to be constant, so that small changes can lead to larger ones (De Jong & Berg, 2013).
Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg. De Shazer and Berg, who were married, founded the Milwaukee centre in 1978 and developed the approach through observing therapy sessions and asking which conversations were followed by change. De Shazer (1985, 1988) wrote the main theoretical works. Berg, a social worker, applied the approach to family-based services, child protection and substance use, and co-authored the most widely used practice text with De Jong (Berg, 1994; De Jong & Berg, 2013). Their work drew on the brief therapy of the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto and the hypnotherapist Milton Erickson.
Preferred futures. SFBT begins by eliciting a detailed description of the client’s preferred future: how life will be different when the problem is resolved. Goals are expressed in positive, concrete and observable terms, as the presence of something new. Clients are asked what they and others will notice, so that the description includes behaviour and relationships (De Jong & Berg, 2013).
The miracle question. The miracle question is the best-known technique for eliciting a preferred future. The worker asks the client to imagine that a miracle happens overnight and the problem is solved, but they do not know because they were asleep. The client is then asked what they would notice the next morning that would tell them the miracle had happened (de Shazer, 1988). Follow-up questions build a detailed picture of the day.
Exceptions. Exceptions are times when the problem could have occurred but did not, or was less severe. Exploring exceptions shows that the client already has some capacity to manage the problem. The worker asks what was different on those occasions and how the client made it happen, so that the conditions for success can be repeated (de Shazer, 1985).
Scaling questions. Scaling questions ask clients to rate their situation on a scale, usually from 0 to 10, where 10 is the preferred future. They are used to assess progress, confidence, motivation and safety. The worker asks why the client is at their current number and not lower, which brings strengths forward, and what would move them one point higher, which identifies a next step (De Jong & Berg, 2013).
Other techniques. Coping questions ask how a person has managed to keep going in difficult circumstances. Compliments affirm what the client is doing well. Sessions often end with a short break, feedback and a suggested task, such as noticing what happens that the client wants to continue (de Shazer, 1985).
Evidence. Kim’s (2008) meta-analysis of 22 studies found small positive effects, which reached statistical significance only for internalising problems such as depression and anxiety. Gingerich and Peterson’s (2013) systematic review of 43 controlled outcome studies found that 74% reported significant benefit from SFBT, often in fewer sessions than comparison treatments. Many studies have small samples and methodological limitations, but the evidence base has grown substantially (Franklin et al., 2012).
2. Historical development
| Period | Development |
|---|---|
| 1950s–1970s | Erickson’s hypnotherapy and the Mental Research Institute’s brief therapy influence later models |
| 1978 | De Shazer and Berg found the Brief Family Therapy Center in Milwaukee |
| 1982–1986 | The team shifts its focus from problems to exceptions and solutions; de Shazer et al. (1986) describe the model |
| 1985–1988 | De Shazer’s Keys to Solution and Clues; the miracle question comes into use |
| 1990s | Berg applies the approach to family-based services and child protection; Signs of Safety develops in Western Australia |
| 2000s | Practice guidance and outcome research expand (Kim, 2008) |
| 2010s–present | Systematic reviews and an evidence-based practice handbook (Franklin et al., 2012) consolidate the research base |
SFBT grew from the family therapy movement, particularly the strategic and brief therapy of the Mental Research Institute, which focused on how attempted solutions maintain problems. De Shazer and his colleagues reversed this emphasis. They noticed that clients often described times when the problem was absent and that change was more likely when conversations focused on those times. The approach was also shaped by constructivist and social constructionist ideas, which hold that the way problems are talked about influences what becomes possible (de Shazer, 1988).
SFBT became an independent approach because it offered a distinct set of assumptions and techniques that could be learned and applied briefly across settings. Berg’s social work background made it attractive to social workers, and it fitted the strengths perspective and the demand for brief services (Payne, 2021). In Australia, Turnell and Edwards (1999) drew on solution-focused ideas to develop the Signs of Safety approach to child protection in Western Australia, which has since been adopted in many jurisdictions.
3. Practical guidance
SFBT suits voluntary clients with goals they can describe, and its questions can be used within many other approaches.
- Ask about the client’s best hopes. Begin with “What are your best hopes from our work together?” This establishes the client’s goals from the first contact (De Jong & Berg, 2013).
- Build a detailed preferred future. Use the miracle question or a simpler version, and keep asking “What else?” and “Who would notice?” until the picture is concrete.
- Search for exceptions. Listen for times when the problem was absent or smaller, and ask what the client did differently. Treat these as evidence of capacity.
- Use scales to track progress and safety. Ask clients to rate progress, confidence and, in child protection or family violence work, safety. Record the scores so that change can be reviewed over time (Turnell & Edwards, 1999).
- Agree on small next steps. Ask what one point higher would look like and what the client might do this week to move towards it.
- Compliment genuinely. Identify specific efforts and strengths. Compliments should be grounded in what the client has actually said or done.
- Do not ignore risk or structural barriers. A future focus should not lead the worker to overlook safety concerns, trauma, or problems such as unaffordable housing that require advocacy.
4. Critical evaluation
Strengths. SFBT is respectful, collaborative and efficient. It positions clients as competent and draws attention to resources that problem-focused assessment may overlook. Its questions are simple to learn and adapt to individuals, families, schools and statutory settings. The evidence base, though uneven, supports its effectiveness for a range of internalising and behavioural problems (Gingerich & Peterson, 2013; Kim, 2008).
Limitations. Critics argue that SFBT can minimise the client’s experience of the problem, especially where pain, trauma or grief need to be acknowledged before a future focus is possible (Payne, 2021). Its brevity and positive framing may not suit complex, long-standing or severe difficulties. The approach has little to say about power, oppression and structural causes of distress, and there is a risk that a focus on individual solutions implies that people can resolve problems produced by social conditions. Effect sizes in meta-analyses are modest (Kim, 2008).
Overall importance. SFBT is one of the most influential brief approaches in social work. Its techniques, particularly scaling questions and the search for exceptions, have been absorbed into many other models and into statutory practice frameworks such as Signs of Safety. It works best when combined with careful risk assessment and attention to the client’s context.
5. References
- Berg, I. K. (1994). Family based services: A solution-focused approach. Norton.
- De Jong, P., & Berg, I. K. (2013). Interviewing for solutions (4th ed.). Brooks/Cole.
- de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to solution in brief therapy. Norton.
- de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy. Norton.
- de Shazer, S., Berg, I. K., Lipchik, E., Nunnally, E., Molnar, A., Gingerich, W., & Weiner-Davis, M. (1986). Brief therapy: Focused solution development. Family Process, 25(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1986.00207.x
- Franklin, C., Trepper, T. S., Gingerich, W. J., & McCollum, E. E. (Eds.). (2012). Solution-focused brief therapy: A handbook of evidence-based practice. Oxford University Press.
- Gingerich, W. J., & Peterson, L. T. (2013). Effectiveness of solution-focused brief therapy: A systematic qualitative review of controlled outcome studies. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(3), 266–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731512470859
- Kim, J. S. (2008). Examining the effectiveness of solution-focused brief therapy: A meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 18(2), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731507307807
- Payne, M. (2021). Modern social work theory (5th ed.). Red Globe Press.
- Turnell, A., & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of safety: A solution and safety oriented approach to child protection casework. Norton.