Evaluating the organisational implementation and impact of a solution-focused brief therapy-informed youth programme: Longitudinal qualitative insights from a Singaporean agency

Abstract

Despite growing knowledge of outcomes associated with solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT), research gaps exist in evaluating it’s effectiveness. Over 1 year, using in-depth qualitative interviews involving Singaporean youth workers and youth, findings indicated that agency-wide SFBT training and implementation within a conducive youth agency context created positive youth worker and youth impact. The youth worker–youth therapeutic alliance was further strengthened through rapport-building and improved relationships arising from SFBT utilisation, thereby creating a positive feedback loop for present and future programming. The findings have implications for social work organisations and youth workers when adopting and adapting SFBT-informed programmes for effective youth engagement.

Keywords

Evaluation research organisation research practice research SFBT social work practice youth

Empirical evidence of solution-focused brief therapy’s (SFBT) impact – a strengths-based, goal-focused and future-oriented approach to psychotherapy – has accumulated in the past decade (Kim et al., 2019), including in social work contexts involving youth and youth workers. In this study, we define youth workers as trained social workers who work with youth. SFBT-trained youth workers focus on youth strengths, resources and goals (Ferraz and Wellman, 2009; Gingerich and Eisengart, 2000). In turn, participating youth benefit from improved interactions (Gong and Hsu, 2017; Kim et al., 2015). Similar trends and outcomes have been observed in Asia, where SFBT usage has increased in recent years. Increasingly too, research has studied the organisational settings which best facilitate SFBT implementation (Franklin et al., 2017; Ho et al., 2023; Kwan et al., 2024).

However, beyond establishing the effectiveness of SFBT and SFBT-informed programmes, research gaps exist in understanding how it may be effective for youth and youth workers (Franklin et al., 2017; Ho et al., 2023). Moreover, in the practice-research context (Kwan et al., 2024; Teo et al., 2023), extant examinations have focused disproportionately on Western settings and populations (Hogan et al., 2017). With implications for SFBT implementation, Western and non-Western social work contexts could differ based on the role and extent of government support or intervention, training and responsibilities of social workers as street-level bureaucrats, and youth’s familial and social support sources. Further research is thus needed on organisational settings where youth workers are collectively trained in SFBT, SFBT-informed youth programmes and the impact of youth–youth worker interactions on the organisations. Therefore, drawing upon in-depth youth worker and youth interviews over a year, this longitudinal qualitative study seeks to understand the organisation-wide training and implementation of SFBT within a Singaporean youth work agency, perceived impact on youth and youth workers, and reciprocal influences as youth and youth workers work with each other (Ho et al., 2023; Kwan et al., 2024).

There are social work implications. SFBT interventions can be improved with greater cognisance of youth workers’ individual and organisational experiences. Addressing questions of implementation and impact is also pertinent in Singapore, where SFBT adoption is comparatively new, and understanding SFBT’s influence can also lead to the sharing of best practices. Subsequently and methodologically, qualitative markers of SFBT’s impact could inform quantitative outcome measures.

Literature review

SFBT

As an empowerment approach, SFBT draws on systemic family and constructivist theories to facilitate therapeutic change (De Jong and Berg, 2013). Emphasising individuals’ inherent strengths, resources and inclination to change (Hsu et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2015), SFBT departs from traditional needs-based or problem-focused approaches to emphasise individuals’ perceptions, preferred future, strengths, past successes and coping abilities (Franklin, 2012). By providing approaches and techniques to identify workable solutions for problems, SFBT is consistent with strengths-based social work perspectives.

As a theory, SFBT is characterised as strengths-based, present- and future-focused, person-centric, empowering and brief (Gong and Hsu, 2017; Koob and Love, 2010). Therefore, by understanding what works, strengths and resilience are reinforced through non-directive ideas and interventions. Typically, SFBT as a therapeutic procedure consists of five stages (De Jong and Berg, 2013), featuring a collaborative relationship between clients and therapists to guide the former towards self-discovery of solutions. Across the stages, change is facilitated using questioning tools (e.g. outcome, miracle, exception, coping and scaling questions).

SFBT’s youth worker impact

Globally, SFBT has been widely implemented by individual counsellors, family therapists and social workers in clinical, social service, educational and correctional settings (De Castro and Guterman, 2008). It has also been used in social work settings to promote professionalisation and enhance counselling competencies when social workers work with youth and their families (Liu et al., 2015).

Similarly, the approach has been used to train professionals working with youth (Kim and Franklin, 2009). Following training, SFBT-trained social workers will perceive clients to possess capacities to envision and materialise change (Gingerich and Eisengart, 2000). Over time, with a greater focus on youth strengths, resources and goals (Ferraz and Wellman, 2009), social workers can change their mindsets about youth, moving from a problem-centred approach to a solution-centred one. Practically, these social workers felt they did not have to prepare solutions before the sessions, and during sessions they applied SFBT questioning tools and trusted youth to do the work.

In Singapore, SFBT-trained social workers reported not being burdened to always be the expert, fewer power struggles, perceptions of clients in more empowering manners, greater emphasis on strengths and possibilities for hope (Hogan et al., 2017). As a non-Western country, Singapore is interesting because the government plays a significant role in social welfare policies, social workers are often positioned to make decisions or find solutions and familial support for youth is prioritised. For instance, across different case studies, including counselling work with Chinese Singaporeans and acceptance of problem talk while listening for strengths, Hogan et al. (2017) highlighted how approaches defied a ‘one-size-fits-all’ assumption. Many customised approaches and tailored interactions included language adaptations, contextualising or simplifying of miracle questions, and strategic use of compliments and praise.

SFBT’s youth impact

Among younger populations, SFBT has historically been used in family service and mental health settings, public social services and child welfare, and schools (Gingerich and Eisengart, 2000). The approach has been effective with these populations because of its straightforward language and utilisation of these young participants’ creativity and imagination. Therefore, youth workers can engage in meaningful dialogue and conversations with youth. In the extant SFBT literature, schools have been the most common implementation context, and internalising behaviours the most common outcome of focus (Gong and Hsu, 2017; Kim et al., 2015). During therapeutic sessions, youth outcomes of interest include reduced resistance to youth workers, youth becoming more comfortable expressing personal views and sharing difficult circumstances, and helping those in mental health settings reinforce capabilities and manage issues (Hogan et al., 2017; Hsu and Wang, 2011). Among Singaporean samples, Hogan et al. (2017) also observed changes in thought patterns, awareness of strength, self-empowerment, and improved confidence, mood and skills. We do not expect Singaporean youth to differ significantly from their global counterparts.

In the longer term, the range of SFBT outcomes documented in a meta-analysis included improvements to externalising behaviour problems, internalising behaviour problems, and family and relationship problems (Gong and Hsu, 2017). Most studies in another meta-analysis were conducted in schools, similarly documenting medium to very large treatment effects for internalising problems such as depression and anxiety (Kim et al., 2015). In other contexts, such as China, SFBT has been used to address emotional and psychological outcomes such as adolescent and youth suicide, depression and marginalisation (Liu et al., 2015). SFBT may also have the potential to promote foster care placement stability (Koob and Love, 2010).

SFBT implementation and effectiveness research

The contents and effectiveness of SFBT training and implementation for therapists and social work professionals have been documented. Most training modalities centre on the five-step process and change mechanism, involving problem description, goal development, exception exploration, feedback, and client evaluation and recognition (De Jong and Berg, 2013; Hsu and Wang, 2011).

Following training, how SFBT is subsequently implemented has been tracked to some extent (Liu et al., 2015). With most SFBT interventions predominantly executed in schools (Franklin et al., 2009; Kim and Franklin, 2009), preliminary work has distinguished between its use and programmes in individual and group settings and how SFBT may complement other interventions (Kim et al., 2015). Given SFBT’s adjunctive nature and adaptability, understanding implementation experiences within social work organisations will be critical for fidelity research and effectiveness studies (Franklin et al., 2017; Lehmann and Patton, 2011).

In Asia, research on SFBT’s effectiveness and programmatic socio-cultural adaptation remains limited (Gong and Hsu, 2017; Ho et al., 2023; Hogan et al., 2017). With intervention effectiveness, focusing especially on ameliorating internalising behaviours, most studies have been conducted among ethnic Chinese populations. Other studies evaluated internalising problems (e.g. mental health problems), social skills or relationships, and career counselling issues (Kim et al., 2015), and among youth samples SFBT yielded the largest intervention effect sizes in schools and in relation to internalising behaviours (Franklin et al., 2009; Kim and Franklin, 2009).

With intervention adaptation, common Asian socio-cultural considerations in practice and research include filial piety and moral familial obligations, social harmony and collectivist societal notions within neo-authoritarian states (Der Pan et al., 2015; Hsu and Wang, 2011). These may feature as programmatic characteristics which can be perceived as ‘non-Western’. In Singapore, positioned among other therapeutic, cross-cultural counselling modalities, SFBT has historically been used in the context of community counselling (Hogan et al., 2017; Yeo et al., 2012). However, the present research base is very limited especially in terms of implementation and impact research, even though SFBT could be a potentially useful approach and paradigm for youth workers and their organisations to work with youth, while navigating Singapore-specific traits in the social work sector. Initial lessons relate to contextualising questioning tools, using different languages, being careful with compliments and avoiding problem talk to prevent intensifying shame resulting from help-seeking stigma (Hogan et al., 2017).

Method

To evaluate the organisational implementation and impact of an SFBT-informed youth programme in REACH Community Services (“REACH”), 26 in-depth interviews were conducted with 16 youth workers (n = 16) and 20 interviews with 20 youth (n = 20). As aforementioned, these youth workers are trained social workers who work with youth. Justifications for the sample size are offered later. A qualitative approach was adopted because it allowed for in-depth examination of the organisation-wide SFBT training, implementation and impact, as perceived by the youth and youth workers. The longitudinal dimension also allowed us to track change and stability and reciprocal influences between the youth and youth workers. Furthermore, hearing from both youth and youth workers minimised the risk of confirmatory and self-response bias as we checked for perceptual convergence and divergence. The study was approved by the National University of Singapore Institutional Review Board. REACH is a charitable organisation working with disadvantaged Singaporeans.

Youth workers were interviewed at two points over 1 year, first from December 2019 to January 2020 (‘T1’), immediately after completing SFBT training, and later from November 2020 to January 2021 (‘T2’), following a 1-year programmatic implementation. Youth were interviewed once, at T2. Youth worker and youth sample characteristics are presented (Tables 1 and 2). At T2, the mean youth worker was 35.6 years old (SD = 10.5; range = 23–55). Most were female and their mean agency experience was 3.5 years (SD = 3.8; range = 0.5–15). Most were interviewed twice. The mean youth was 17.2 years old (SD = 3.0; range = 13–22) and the sex/gender split was about even.

Table 1.

Sample characteristics of youth workers (n = 16) who participated in the T1 (December 2019–January 2020) and T2 interviews (November 2020–January 2021).

Youth worker ID	Sex/gender	Age	Year(s) of experience in the agency	T1	T2
1	Male	39	15	Y	Y
2	Male	44	8	Y	Y
3	Male	29	3	Y	Y
4	Female	29	1	Y	Y
5	Male	55	5	Y
6	Male	27	1	Y	Y
7	Female	24	0.5	Y	Y
8	Male	27	3	Y	Y
9	Female	45	2	Y
10	Female	54	0.5	Y	Y
11	Female	25	1.5	Y	Y
12	Female	38	2	Y
13	Female	31	7	Y	Y
14	Female	35	3.5		Y
15	Female	45	1.5		Y
16	Female	23	1		Y

Table 2.

Sample characteristics of youth (n = 20) who participated in the T2 interviews (November 2020–January 2021).

Youth ID	Sex/gender	Age	Race/ethnicity
1	Male	14	Malay
2	Female	13	Chinese
3	Male	16	Malay
4	Male	18	Filipino
5	Male	15	Malay
6	Male	15	Malay
7	Male	18	Malay
8	Female	22	Chinese
9	Male	13	Malay
10	Male	17	Chinese
11	Male	18	Chinese
12	Female	20	Chinese
13	Female	22	Chinese
14	Female	17	Indian
15	Male	15	Indian
16	Female	16	Chinese
17	Male	21	Malay
18	Female	18	Chinese
19	Female	14	Chinese
20	Female	22	Malay

Data collection

All youth workers who completed the organisation-wide SFBT training in December 2019 were invited to participate in the T1 in-depth interviews. They were asked about the training, self-rated SFBT knowledge and mastery, and plans for SFBT application. A year later, at T2, they were first asked about how they conducted a typical youth session. Thereafter, youth workers were asked about their social work experience before SFBT training, personal and professional changes, and SFBT evaluation. To ensure intervention fidelity, REACH’s youth workers were first supported through programmatic protocols which were tightly aligned with the training materials. Additional guidance was provided for the questioning tools (e.g. outcome, miracle, exception, coping and scaling questions). Second, and perhaps more importantly, youth workers were paired with supervisors, who ensured fidelity and provided support through observations of youth sessions, one-to-one reflections and active feedback.

At T2, youth who participated in SFBT-informed agency programmes and who had interacted with at least an interviewed youth worker were invited to be interviewed. They were sampled purposively, and we concluded data collection after reaching saturation (i.e. collecting and analysing additional youth data did not yield additional insights) (Morgan, 1993). Youth were asked about a typical one-on-one session and significant interactions with youth workers. Next, they evaluated REACH’s programmes.

Prior to participation, youth workers and youth provided written informed consent (or assent). Written parental consent was obtained for youth under 18 years. Youth were compensated with US$20 in gift vouchers. At T1, interviews were conducted in person, in a private room within REACH. At T2, given COVID-19 restrictions, they were mostly done over Zoom, with safeguards to protect anonymity. To further ensure privacy and minimise risk to confidentiality, we collected minimal identifying information.

Data analysis

All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcriptions were first outsourced, which were about 90 percent–95 percent accurate, before the first, third and fourth authors provided additional checks and removed the names of all persons, organisations and any other identifiers, to protect participant confidentiality. Overall, guided in the qualitative methodology of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Terry et al., 2017), all five authors were involved in a systematic six-step process as data were analysed, patterns identified and themes reported. First, interview transcripts were read and reread to develop familiarity. Second, initial, line-by-line codes were generated for some interviews. Frequent and significant initial codes included SFBT training and implementation, perceived impact and youth worker–youth interactions. Third, these initial codes were collated into themes with relevant data, before they were applied throughout the sample. Fourth, we reviewed the themes by checking them to coded interviews. Analytical thematic maps were also iterated. Fifth, guided by the maps and team discussions, final themes were defined and labelled by refining their specifics to generate definitions and names for each theme. Sixth, representative excerpts and evocative exemplars were identified for each theme.

All five authors worked to ensure data analysis quality, including multiple readings of all transcribed interviews, initial line-by-line coding and recoding of some interviews. Besides individual journals of detailed notes and analytical interpretations, shared documents were created to keep track of initial codes, data features and coding categories. Upon saturation with no new codes emerging (Morgan, 1993), potential themes were expanded and sorted using thematic maps. Frequent and significant themes and sub-themes were reviewed against the interview data, as we checked for recurrence, repetition and forcefulness (Owen, 1984). Finally, we met the overall standard of referential adequacy through constant comparison across the 46 interviews, and the audit trail included the aforementioned journals of notes, memos and debriefs after each interview (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).

Results

Our thematic analysis resulted in the joint development of five related themes (Figure 1). First, before youth workers were trained in SFBT, REACH offered a supportive environment for youth, through its programmes and services and youth workers. Second, following the training and 1-year SFBT-informed programme implementation, youth workers actively used SFBT and its tools. Consequently, youth workers and youth described positive impact. Finally, the youth worker–youth therapeutic alliance was further strengthened through the building of rapport and improved relationships arising from SFBT utilisation, creating a positive feedback loop. We did not identify any outlying cases which did not fit with these interpretations.

Conducive youth agency context for SFBT training and implementation: ‘There is someone I can turn to’

Before youth worker training and SFBT implementation, youth enjoyed spending time within the conducive youth agency context. Supported by youth workers, they participated in different programmes and interacted with peers and mentors.

Targeted programmes and services

REACH’s diverse offerings, beyond conventional casework and counselling, targeted youth interests (e.g. functional fitness, sports, baking, music). In turn, youth expressed enjoyment because they felt heard and had their needs met. When having fun, youth not only alleviated boredom but also set aside personal problems momentarily, as youth #15 shared: ‘It’s just, go in there, have so much fun with the rest of them . . . Just continue to be happy and don’t think about the negative thoughts’. Others also learnt new skills and better expressed themselves. Youth #17 found the music programme relaxing: ‘[It] helps me to ease out my mind. Cause I’ve been like keeping thoughts inside . . . But then in this music programme, you don’t have to hold your voice back. You just let everything out when you sing’.

Positive peer and mentor interactions

Youth were also drawn to the friendships and mentorships forged. Youth #09 bonded with peers: ‘We talk to friends; we make new friends’. Younger youth benefitted from older mentors, with whom they consulted when facing everyday problems. They often approached mentors first before seeking youth workers’ guidance, because the smaller age difference meant that mentors may better relate to personal struggles. Older youth mentors then felt accomplished and fulfilled when they witnessed positive changes. Youth #13 said:

To like mentor the youths is like, fulfilling-ish? Because they will share their problems with you. You just feel like a bit happy because at the start they’re all very shy, then towards the end they will keep talking a lot.

Youth worker support

Youth described youth workers positively, as kind, approachable, optimistic, trustworthy and supportive. Collectively, youth wanted to spend more time at REACH. Youth #02 observed youth workers as readily available, that she could share intimate life details in a safe and encouraging space. This sense of security was empowering for youth, who felt that they could always turn to youth workers when facing personal issues. Youth #14 sought help proactively:

They are very patient with me and I’m very thankful for that. And the sessions are like really useful and productive mostly. They make me feel like it’s valid for me to feel this way because it makes me more human and stuff. And I don’t feel so lost when I’m over here, like in the session and stuff. It makes me feel so much better and it’s a really good support for me.

Agency-wide SFBT training and implementation: ‘I have used SFBT in different contexts; one-to-one, family, group, programme’

Across a 1-year implementation, youth workers saw SFBT-informed programming as a client-centred approach, perspective, and set of complementary questioning tools, as they used SFBT in group sessions, individualised casework and counselling.

SFBT as a client-centred approach and perspective

When using SFBT as an approach and perspective, youth workers changed how they viewed youth, empowering youth to take ownership of their personal growth and development. Instead of focusing on problems and needs, youth workers recognised that youth possessed solutions and strengths necessary to overcome struggles and achieve goals. The mindset shifts of framing youth as ‘experts’ consequently impacted youth workers’ practice and interactions.

Increasingly, youth workers drew out youth strengths and generated solutions together. ‘Youth have the capability to be the expert in terms of what he or she hopes to achieve’, worker #03 reflected. Progressively, as he became more present- and future-focused and accentuated youth goals, he focused on goal co-construction and redefinition based on youth desires, dreams and future hopes: ‘Keep digging with the youth to help the youth identify what does the youth want, hope, and that this conversation can also help facilitate it’.

SFBT as complementary and contextualised set of questioning tools

Youth workers customised and contextualised the SFBT questioning tools in terms of language and delivery to suit their personal styles, community culture and youth characteristics, such that SFBT complemented existing skills and knowledge. Explaining how he used questioning tools in ‘appropriate’ contexts, worker #01 learnt ‘to improvise, use it according to my own style and the context of the client also; language, age, appropriateness, and all’.

With miracle questions, youth workers worked with youth to set specific goals and directions. Youth imagined and discussed a future without their problems and issues. In addition, youth workers used the questions when youth felt despondent and hopeless, helping them ‘see hope in the situation’ by imagining better possibilities. Worker #08 said: ‘So we know . . . what is ideal right, what is the miracle, so we can slowly move towards there’. To use the questions effectively, youth workers emphasised contextualisation and tailoring to youth characteristics, language and imagination, and the right situations and timings. For many, for instance, using miracle questions without contextualisation can be fruitless, awkward and confusing. Worker #07 shared: ‘It’s finding the right moment to ask. Cause like out of the blue ask, very weird’.

Scaling questions were most commonly used. While some youth workers struggled with contextualising other questions, most found scaling questions to be easy, with youth positioning problems on a sliding scale and, over time, tracking incremental progress. Worker #11 reflected: ‘It helps me see in the client perspective on where they are at, at this point of time, in that moment’. Besides assessing perceived youth circumstances, youth workers used scaling questions to help youth better express themselves, understand life situations, set goals, envision a better future and clarify youth priorities.

Finally, youth workers used coping and exception questions to explore resources and identify strengths. Coping questions helped examine what worked for youth, while exception questions explored how youth overcame past difficulties. Youth workers applied both questioning tools to identify strengths and bring hope to youth, reminding them of the possibility and emergence of life changes.

Positive youth worker impact: ‘I don’t find myself drowning that much in sessions’

Improved planning and conduct of sessions

Following a year of SFBT implementation, youth workers described their sessions as positive and light-hearted, with intentional focus on youth strengths and goals. Worker #02 described the overall mood as ‘definitely lighter’, because: ‘The approach is forward-looking. And we often jump straight into the outcome’. Youth workers saw themselves as journeying and working more closely with youth towards self-identified goals. Worker #08 compared his pre-SFBT youth interactions, when it was all ‘talk, talk, talk, but nothing happens between sessions’, with recent conversations, when youth expressed the ‘things she can do, she wants to do’. Centring youth as experts of their lives meant listening more and yielding more space and autonomy to youth. He added: ‘I don’t find myself drowning that much in sessions, constantly thinking about things to say and, “What’s next? What’s next? What’s next?” . . . [Sessions are] more carefree, more relaxed for me’. Worker #01 explained how SFBT-guided sessions resulted in better youth understandings:

I began to better understand how to work with clients using their resources, going along with them on their agency and their goals, not mine, and learning how to tap onto their expertise and their strengths. Because they are the experts, and not me.

Deeper interactions with youth

Improved sessions resulted in deeper youth interactions. For worker #01, being more intentional with incorporating SFBT led to youth becoming less defensive and apprehensive. They were more forthcoming and shed their ‘fear factor’:

Because if I come in as a person of authority, there will be fear. There will be insecurity and maybe even defensive responses. But when I went in with that approach, it’s really more open and I levelled the power play quite significantly.

Similarly, speaking of increased rapport, worker #15 found that youth interactions became more ‘fun’. Beyond using SFBT for individual casework, she also applied it in small-group settings, observing that: ‘Interactions within the group itself were also a little bit “chattier”. There are more conversations going back and forth between the youth, like bantering’.

Youth worker perspectives of positive youth impact

Youth workers saw youth as increasingly hopeful and forthcoming. Worker #04 shared that youth no longer just focused on the negatives, and worker #03 added that previously overwhelmed youth gradually learnt ‘to address, manage, and take control of emotions to translate into what he then wants to do in small steps’. Youth, positioned as experts of their lives, worked with but did not disproportionately rely on youth workers, expressing personal hopes and present and future solutions. Worker #13 detailed a youth who ‘Talked about the ideal family that she wanted to have. So at the end of it, she was really like, it felt almost like, “Okay, a door opened for her”’.

As youth became more solutions- and future-oriented, they formed goals. The process was very encouraging, because many youth ‘never really had the chance to be able to sit down with someone and talk about what [their] plans could possibly be’ (worker #15). Youth workers created additional opportunities for collaborative youth goal exploration, further encouraged by youth taking personal ownership. Worker #03’s youth focused less on what was going wrong and took greater control. Worker #14’s youth personally devised solutions to problems and led conversations.

Positive youth impact: ‘Then slowly, slowly, I became happier’

Youth described programmes and services touched by SFBT. They specified how youth workers took more explorative conversational approaches, which led to youth being more introspective and charting their personal growth and development journeys.

Experiencing a more explorative conversational approach

Youth explained that youth workers guided them through questions and self-exploration. Youth reflected on their lives and recognised personal abilities to shape future outcomes (e.g. improving anger management, school attendance, academic results and communication skills). Youth #10, struggling with anxiety, reflected:

Then slowly, I think because of the fact that she asked a lot of questions, it got me to think. Otherwise, I wouldn’t, you know, delve into it. There were a couple of questions like this. So let’s say, I share with her an issue that I believe [is] the real issue. But afterwards, I’m questioning. And I realise that’s just something that is on the surface. So I’ve not got[ten] down to the root of the problem.

Through his youth worker’s guiding questions, the youth was nudged to think deeper. He continued: ‘Because of the questioning, I think I started to explore on my own’. Youth #14 described how REACH and youth workers created a space for self-reflection, learning how she could ‘use my bad situation to build and mould my character’. She added: ‘Take advantage of my bad situation like my depression, like make me into a better me . . . Take advantage of the bad thing, and then there’s always good in bad and bad in good’.

Greater introspection and youth self-understanding

By exercising greater introspection and self-understanding under youth worker guidance, youth gained insight into their emotions, behaviours, strengths and weaknesses. Youth #18, describing himself as having anger management issues, made sense of personal triggers and how to control his temper (e.g. focusing on sports like dodgeball). Youth #02 and #10 highlighted emotional and behavioural struggles, and both felt that being able to identify personal struggles was a good starting point for development. Similarly, youth #09 and #14 spoke of gradual self-improvements, being happier and feeling more productive.

Personal journeys of growth and development within agency

Over time, some youth further specified journeys or trajectories of growth, as they contrasted their past and present selves. Youth #07 detailed how he developed solutions with his youth worker to manage his temper. In the form of a scaling question, youth #14 said: ‘Before I got to know REACH, my confidence level was like 2 out of 20? Right now I would say a good like 14 or 16 out of 20’.

Moreover, youth specified concrete steps they took to advance personal goals. Earlier, youth #10 reflected on anxiety issues. Over time, being in REACH was a journey of ‘trying to get an understanding of myself’, and with time he saw himself easing anxieties, understanding himself better and developing coping strategies.

Therapeutic alliance as positive feedback loop for organisation: ‘A friend that I can talk to, laugh with, make jokes with’

With SFBT and the programmes’ positive impact on youth workers and youth, the strengthening alliance created a positive feedback loop for REACH. Existing programmes benefitted from youth input, which in turn facilitated stronger youth worker engagement.

Strengthening rapport

Youth workers and youth mutually benefitted from SFBT-informed programming. As youth workers listened more, identified strengths and encouraged youth without imposing personal views, youth in turn responded positively. Youth #02 appreciated her youth workers’ optimism, who were attentive when listening to her problems. Youth #07 saw his youth worker as reliable, as ‘someone there for me’. Youth #15 described his youth worker as ‘a friend I can talk to, laugh with, make jokes with’. Progressively, youth deepened favourable assessments of youth workers, consequently maintaining or increasing REACH’s appeal.

As youth became more forthcoming, they became more comfortable sharing details of personal lives. Youth #07 was comforted that ‘there is someone there that is like always there to hear your problems, no matter what’, while youth #14 appreciated her youth worker’s patient guidance:

Anything I cannot answer, or I don’t know how to phrase out my thing that I’m supposed to respond, she will ask me multiple questions until I know how to phrase a few sentences. Because I have that anxiety problem and I’m an introvert. And I may be moody before I came to, like a session, because of something that happened. So she really helps in that.

Constant development of youth workers

Beyond intervention fidelity, as youth workers actively used and applied SFBT programmatically, their development was reflected in three ways. First, they identified strengths and prioritised encouragement and affirmation in youth interactions. Worker #03 consciously steered conversations towards solution-focused approaches, for example, affirming a youth improving his household situation as a ‘responsible son’. Worker #07 emphasised drawing out her youth’s strengths and assets. Second, youth workers had smoother youth conversations, with workers #03 and #13 encountering less communicative ‘roadblocks’. Third, they took care not to impose views, advice or suggestions. Workers #03 and #04 created even more space for youth to think for themselves and did not enter sessions with ‘preconceived goals or agenda’. Worker #01 departed from his past problem-solving approaches. Instead:

I chose to go in with a curious mind and then just going along with the person explaining, this is what I’m seeing, this is what I’m sensing, and this is what I’m getting, hearing from others as well . . . I did have some thoughts in mind, but I didn’t go like prescribing it. I just kinda like left it at one side first but I just hear what he has tried, what has been done, what has worked and what has not worked, and what will be more helpful to do more.

Youth workers’ development and progress were not lost on youth, who evaluated their youth worker interactions positively. Youth #10 switched from a previous counsellor, from another agency, who was ‘judgmental’ and who made him ‘uncomfortable’, because the counsellor insisted that his life was ‘so bad and I think you should do it my way’. Youth #14 felt that his previous primary school counsellor underrated him, whereas at REACH her youth worker was neither ‘restrictive’ nor ‘controlling’. Youth who saw their youth workers’ progress felt supported and were more willing to continue participating.

Discussion

The findings overall illustrate the organisational implementation and impact of an SFBT-informed youth programme on both youth workers and youth with whom they work. Here, the findings are juxtaposed with the existing literature, and the extent to which the findings can be applied and transferred to other settings is considered.

The positive impact of SFBT training and implementation in this study is corroborated by existing studies. Consistent with the extant literature (Ferraz and Wellman, 2009; Gingerich and Eisengart, 2000), youth workers witnessed positive youth impact through improved sessions and deeper interactions with youth. Similarly, youth became more conversational and introspective as they embarked on personal journeys of growth and development (Gong and Hsu, 2017; Kim et al., 2015). However, this study extends those insights to document the collective impact on both youth workers and youth. Furthermore, benefits to both resulted in a therapeutic alliance which functioned as a positive feedback loop for present and future programming, facilitating mutually reinforcing gains and made the youth agency context even more conducive. Future studies should consider the extent to which these gains are sustained beyond a year. Longitudinally, youth predispositions may shift as they transition into young adulthood or when they leave REACH. For youth workers, how they continue to use SFBT would be of interest.

In addition, by indicating youth workers’ constant development, this study illustrates that SFBT training and programmatic implementation are constant, ongoing processes. Existing studies often frame training as one-off and implementation as the immediate extension (De Jong and Berg, 2013; Hsu and Wang, 2011; Liu et al., 2015), with youth worker impact reported in the short-term (Ferraz and Wellman, 2009; Gingerich and Eisengart, 2000). Instead, we find that developing and mastering competencies are long-term processes. REACH’s youth workers used youth interactions as constant guidance and sought affirmation, had smoother youth conversations and became more introspective. A future study would involve the same study sample, including if they leave the agency, tracking the youth workers on whether and how they continue to use SFBT. This will be instructive for longer term investigations related to intervention effectiveness and fidelity (Franklin et al., 2017; Lehmann and Patton, 2011), including the use of programmatic protocols and supervision.

Finally, another significant study contribution is consideration of SFBT implementation and impact within the context of a youth work agency in a non-Western setting. Existing research on SFBT fidelity has offered initial guidance on how practitioners may assess and adapt the approach for the best therapeutic outcomes, but not necessarily in the context of an organisation (Franklin et al., 2017), or in an Asian context (Gong and Hsu, 2017; Hogan et al., 2017). Contextual differences across government involvement, social worker responsibilities and youth support sources could feature. REACH’s youth workers understood SFBT as a client-centred approach and perspective and perceived it as a complementary and contextualised set of questioning tools, and over the 1-year period they used SFBT effectively. More importantly, the agency – with its programmes and services, positive peer-mentor interactions and youth worker support – formed a conducive setting for SFBT training and implementation. The contextualisation and adaptations made by the youth workers, in a Singaporean setting, could be further replicated and tested. Follow-up studies should consider the persistence of the positive feedback loop for present and future programming and specify how it shapes the youth agency, in the form of youth programmatic input, increased interaction quality and greater youth willingness to reciprocate through civic contribution.

There are some limitations. The study has limited generalisability because of the focus on a Singaporean youth agency. While the sample size was small, all REACH’s youth workers were interviewed. Youth only participated at T2, not T1. And despite a systematic and team-based approach, social desirability bias – with youth workers and youth perhaps painting their experiences more positively – cannot be eliminated. Nevertheless, youth workers did highlight improvement areas and youth were highly encouraged to speak their minds, with many reflecting on how they would like to be engaged differently. Finally, for youth workers, while the longitudinal design is advantageous, future process- or fidelity-focused studies should track experiences at more regular intervals. The influence of the authors on the data should not be discounted, though the second author, not part of the organisation, checked for bias, especially if the findings were overwhelmingly positive. Other data collection artefacts could include in-session feedback forms, diaries with guided questions, team meetings and structured focus groups.

In conclusion, the findings indicated that agency-wide SFBT training and implementation within a conducive youth agency context led to positive youth worker and youth impact. The youth worker–youth therapeutic alliance was further strengthened through rapport-building and improved relationships arising from SFBT utilisation, thereby creating a positive feedback loop for present and future programming. With practice implications for social work organisations, SFBT interventions can be improved with greater cognisance of youth workers’ individual and organisational experiences. Addressing questions of implementation and impact is also pertinent in Singapore, where SFBT adoption among social service organisations is comparatively new, and understanding SFBT’s influence can also lead to the sharing of best practices. Subsequently and methodologically, qualitative markers of SFBT’s impact on youth and youth workers could inform quantitative intervention and outcome measures.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Austrian Solution Circle Research Grant (2020).

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the National University of Singapore Institutional Review Board (NUS-IRB-2020-282).

ORCID iD

Jin Yao Kwan

Author biographies

Timothy Goh was a research intern with REACH Community Services, Singapore, focused on youth and adolescent development.

Jin Yao Kwan is an assistant professor in the University of Delaware. His research focuses on the development of adolescents, youth and young adults in underserved communities.

Yan Ling Tan was a research intern with REACH Community Services, Singapore, focused on youth and adolescent development.

Venna Ng was a research intern with REACH Community Services, Singapore, focused on youth and adolescent development.

Joanna Khor is team lead of youth service research projects at REACH Community Services, Singapore. She is a registered social worker.

References

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

De Castro

Guterman

(2008) Solution-focused therapy for families coping with suicide. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 34(1): 93–106.

De Jong

Berg

(2013) Interviewing for Solutions (4th edn). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.

Der Pan

Deng

FL-Y

Tsai

S-L

, et al. (2015) Using Kollar’s solution-focused pastoral counseling for bereaved clients: The process of empowerment from clients’ perception. Psychological Reports 116(1): 127–148.

Ferraz

Wellman

(2009) Fostering a culture of engagement: An evaluation of a 2-day training in solution-focused brief therapy for mental health workers. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 16(4): 326–334.

Franklin

(ed.) (2012) Solution-focused Brief Therapy: A Handbook of Evidence-based Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Franklin

Kim

Tripodi

(2009) A meta-analysis of published school social work practice studies: 1980–2007. Research on Social Work Practice 19(6): 667–677.

Franklin

Zhang

Froerer

, et al. (2017) Solution focused brief therapy: A systematic review and meta-summary of process research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 43(1): 16–30.

Gingerich

Eisengart

(2000) Solution-focused brief therapy: A review of the outcome research. Family Process 39(4): 477–498.

10.

Gong

Hsu

(2017) The effectiveness of solution-focused group therapy in ethnic Chinese school settings: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 67(3): 383–409.

11.

Goh

Kwan

, et al. (2023) ‘Everybody needs to be on board’: Individual and organisational youth worker experiences of solution-focused brief therapy training and implementation in a multi-cultural Singaporean context. International Social Work 67: 360–374.

12.

Hogan

Tuomola

, et al. (eds) (2017) Solution Focused Practice in Asia. Abingdon; New York: Routledge.

13.

Hsu

K-S

Eads

Lee

, et al. (2021) Solution-focused brief therapy for behavior problems in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis of treatment effectiveness and family involvement. Children and Youth Services Review 120: 105620.

14.

Hsu

W-S

Wang

CDC

(2011) Integrating Asian clients’ filial piety beliefs into solution-focused brief therapy. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling 33(4): 322–334.

15.

Kim

Franklin

(2009) Solution-focused brief therapy in schools: A review of the outcome literature. Children and Youth Services Review 31(4): 464–470.

16.

Kim

Franklin

Zhang

, et al. (2015) Solution-focused brief therapy in China: A meta-analysis. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work 24(3): 187–201.

17.

Kim

Jordan

Franklin

, et al. (2019) Is solution-focused brief therapy evidence-based? An update 10 years later. Families in Society 100(2): 127–138.

18.

Koob

Love

(2010) The implementation of solution-focused therapy to increase foster care placement stability. Children and Youth Services Review 32(10): 1346–1350.

19.

Kwan

Khor

Chan

(2024) Practice research’s challenges and opportunities across project conceptualisation, implementation, and dissemination: A Singaporean case study. China Journal of Social Work 17: 52–66.

20.

Lehmann

Patton

(2011) The development of a solution-focused fidelity instrument: A pilot study. Solution-focused Brief Therapy. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195385724.001.0001/acprof-9780195385724-chapter-003 (accessed 14 April 2022).

21.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

22.

Liu

Zhang

Franklin

, et al. (2015) The practice of solution-focused brief therapy in Mainland China. Health & Social Work 40(2): 84–90.

23.

Morgan

(1993) Qualitative content analysis: A guide to paths not taken. Qualitative Health Research 3(1): 112–121.

24.

Owen

(1984) Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70(3): 274–287.

25.

Teo

Koh

Kwan

(2023) ‘Beyond a practice-research bridge’: Project conceptualisation, implementation, and dissemination by an internal social work intermediary in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development 33: 345–360.

26.

Terry

Hayfield

Clarke

, et al. (2017) Thematic analysis. In: Willig

Rogers

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. London: Sage, pp. 17–36. Available at: http://methods.sagepub.com/book/the-sage-handbook-of-qualitative-research-in-psychology-second-edition/i425.xml (accessed 24 September 2020).

27.

Yeo

Tan

Neihart

(2012) Counseling in Singapore. Journal of Counseling & Development 90(2): 243–248.