Tellerman, J.S. (2001). Solution-oriented groups for teens,pre-teens and their families. In VandeCreek, L. (Ed.). Innovations in Clinical Practice: ASource Book, Vol. 20. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.

SOLUTION-ORIENTED GROUPS FOR TEENS, PRE-TEENS AND

THEIR FAMILIES

Judith S. Tellerman

Weist (2001) used the Child and Adolescent Program

Planning Schema to analyze

gaps in mental health services for school-age children and

adolescents. To fill the

gaps, the author suggested establishing primary and secondary prevention programs and

improving tertiary care. Furthermore, he recommended that education lead the effort to

enhance prevention and mental health promotion activities for youth, and that this effort

also involve community mental health and public health agencies. Weist concluded

"…the time has come for those invested in youth learning, behavior, and development to

1

focus more on prevention and mental health promotion. As partnerships between youth-

services systems are formed, systematic analysis of needs and existing resources are

conducted, and gaps in prevention and intervention programs are filled, the potential for

historic progress is real." (p.104)

OVERVIEW OF Solutions Unlimited Now – SUN(sm)

The Solutions Unlimited Now – SUN(sm) problem solving

group model for teens, pre-teens and families is designed to

fill an important gap in the array of primary and secondary

prevention, intervention or postvention strategies for young

people. SUN provides a unique experiential process, an

opportunity to learn positive life skills by experiencing and

practicing them in a dynamic peer group interaction

facilitated by mental health professionals with accredited

training and/or supervised experience in group counseling in

schools, community mental health centers, hospitals,

residential treatment facilities and other community

settings. This time-limited, task-oriented group model can be

used as part of a program for prevention of self-destructive

2

behaviors, for intervention with self-destructive behaviors,

after a traumatic event to manage posttraumatic stress

disorder symptoms, and for parenting education. The SUN group

can be implemented alone or in combination with other

treatment modalities and orientations.

SUN is a highly structured group-counseling model

consisting of 6-12 members who meet once a week for about an

hour for 8-10 weeks. Ten steps designed to help members

enhance decision-making, social, and coping skills; reduce

impulsivity; prevent self-destructive behaviors; and create

a Caring Community Climate(sm) that fosters the development

of Social Capital define the dynamics of the model. The

first several steps are oriented to helping the group

members articulate feelings and define problems. After one

member shares a problem with the group each person tries to

understand the problem and then learns to express his or her

own feelings about the problem and to express empathy for

the member who presented it. This continues until the person

presenting the problem feels understood by the group, thus

experiencing the power of empathy and a Caring Community

3

Climate(sm), an inoculation to prevent bullying, alienation

and isolation. The group brainstorms possible solutions,

picks the best solution and prepares a problem-solving plan.

The group member implements the solution and reports results

back to the group.

The SUN program empowers young people to take

responsibility for solving problems, developing competency,

and acting with considered responses instead of impulsive

reactions. It helps members learn to hold a problem or

impulse in consciousness without acting on it and then to

give it a reasoned response. It develops skills that are

crucial for future success in work and social relationships:

team-building and task-oriented behavior. It establishes

competency as a key basis for self-esteem, i.e. when we

accomplish things we realize we can do more and more; as we

do more our self-esteem grows.

IMPORTANCE OF CREATING A CARING COMMUNITY CLIMATE(sm) FOSTERING DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

Putnam (2000) has described the core idea of social

capital theory, that social networks have value. “Just as a

4

screwdriver (physical capital) or a college education (human

capital) can increase productivity (both individual and

collective), so too social contacts affect the productivity

of individuals and groups…social capital refers to

connections among individuals - social networks and the

norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from

them.” (p.19) Putnam writes about the positive effects of

social capital. But, as with any powerful force, it can be

misused. An example of the destructive power of social

capital is the connectedness of members of the Ku Klux Klan.

The “Lord of the Flies Syndrome” is an example of negative

youthful social capital. This term is derived from the

novel, Lord of the Flies, which tells the story of a group of

English schoolboys who survive a plane crash and land on an

uninhabited island. Most of them devolve into a group whose

norm is a state of savage, primitive, superstitious,

murderous behavior and who attack anyone that deviates from

this regressed group norm.

Dishion, McCord, and Poulin (1999) have documented the way

in which peer aggregation in early adolescence can reinforce

5

problem behaviors and the risk that certain peer group

interventions can inadvertently reinforce problem behaviors.

Based on data from the Roper Social and Political

Trends and the DDB Needham Life Style, surveys that report

Americans’ changing life styles over the last 25 years,

Putnam found that social capital, not demographic

characteristics such as level of income, racial composition,

adult educational levels, teachers’ salaries, class size,

drives test scores. The higher the social capital measured

in a state, the higher the standardized test scores in

elementary school, junior high school and high school.

Putnam found that social capital at the neighborhood or

community level had an impact on child learning and that

social capital within families helped children stay in

school, have higher grade point averages, avoid drugs and

delinquent behavior, go to college and have a steady job.

Given the impact of social capital of neighborhoods or

communities and within families on children’s success in

life, does it not make sense that social capital within

6

schools would have a tremendous impact on children’s success

in school?

Children have a natural proclivity toward groups; and

in adolescent years that proclivity can turn negative as

evidenced by the presence of gangs. It is important to shape

these natural proclivities by creating structures within the

environment of the school to nurture social capital and to

channel it in a positive direction. By seeding the school

environment with structured group experiences that build a

Caring Community Climate(sm) an overall environment leading

to social capital is encouraged where children score higher

in standardized tests while enjoying the benefits of trust

and reciprocity from classmates and set the stage for

becoming civic-minded community participants as adults. The

SUN group program is designed to build social capital in the

school and community environment.

Social capital is an important consideration in the

design of a group-counseling model for young people. The

ideal is to create an environment that encourages social

capital to flourish. Traditional unstructured counseling

7

groups move through a series of stages which can be summed

up in the vernacular as “Forming, Norming, Storming,

Performing.” Task-oriented behavior occurs in the last

stage, Performing. In the first three stages group members

experience ambiguous and chaotic situations in which they

have a vague idea of what is expected of them or what will

happen. As they coalesce they go through a stormy period in

which scapegoating can occur. They receive confrontational

feedback from each other. This process can result in

heightened anxiety for group members and poses many pitfalls

and obstacles on the path toward social capital that may

prevent group members from achieving the goal of connections

among individuals - social networks and the norms of

reciprocity and trustworthiness.

O’Rourke and Wortbyt (1996) have found results suggest

that group leaders should discourage confrontation and

encourage supportive feedback, a skill most children do not

naturally possess and in which they need to be trained.

Letting children interact spontaneously can be quite

detrimental to the group process. Their conclusion is that

8

children need mostly support and encouragement in the group

setting. They may not have the strength to deal with

criticism. They want to be listened to, and need mostly

attention, encouragement, empowerment, and assistance with

their emotional and practical difficulties. Schechtman’s

(2001) research corroborates these findings. She found that

children referred to group because of problem behaviors do

not know how to be supportive of each other in group

interactions; yet this is what they need most. Scheidlinger

(2000) has found that being accepted and valued by the group

are important variables in successful treatment of youths.

Soo (2001) has found emotionally damaged children have

immature, inadequate defense mechanisms, i.e. they lack the

means of adapting constructively to stressful stimuli. If

they are asked to talk about their problems, or reveal

themselves, they “act out,” i.e. act aggressively because

they are unable to express and articulate problems due to

their egocentric need to protect their identity which they

perceive to be under assault. If the leader helps them to

concretize their problem by articulating it, this helps them

9

to build more adaptive defenses. By articulating the

problems they develop objectivity about the problems. Then

they see themselves apart from their egocentricity.

Subsequently when they share and receive support in the

group, they develop defenses that are less aggressive and

more adaptive.

The SUN program is attuned to the findings reported by

O’Rourke, Wortbyt, Schechtman, Scheidlinger, and Soo. Its

structure establishes an environment for rapid cohesion and

bonding of group members by establishing a norm that only

permits supportive solution-oriented behavior. Its high

level of structure provides a solid pathway which gives

reassurance that group members know where they are headed;

boundaries to reassure members whose internal boundaries are

fragile and tend to feel fragmented and lost when frustrated

or anxious; limits to reassure children whose home lives are

chaotic and out-of-control; methods of impulse control to

uplift those who have suffered due to inability to control

impulses. The task-oriented steps guide them toward a

resolution and a specific outcome that they can identify as

10

an accomplishment. The empathy-oriented steps lead them to a

level of understanding of each other’s humanity that results

in connectedness among individuals in social networks and

the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness, i.e. social

capital.

If we look at two of the dimensions of social capital –

bonding (exclusivity which strengthens the links between

people who are closely related and builds solidarity) and

bridging (inclusivity which provides linkage to external

assets) we see the SUN program provides a bridging

experience. In the SUN group people learn that when they

feel they have no options or solutions they can turn to

others and receive the benefit of different perspectives so

they can formulate options, solutions and coping mechanisms.

This accentuates the value of the variety and richness of

multicultural diversity. The bonding that occurs in the SUN

program is based on understanding, sharing and helping each

other. Diversity is celebrated while the universal ties are

discovered.

DESCRIPTION OF SUN PROGRAM

11

The SUN training program consists of the Group Leaders'

Training Manual (including two Handouts to be distributed to

group members in the first group session which orient them

to: (1) the 10 step program; (2) the importance of

responding to problems with a considered rather than

impulsive response, and (3) the importance of reaching out to

others for help, i.e., developing a support system; and the

1/2 hour video, Talking Troubles. The video, Talking Troubles, is

played for the teens in the first group session to provide a

demonstration of group process. The video documents the true

stories of teens who are struggling to cope with problems and

are helped by their experience in the SUN group. They

provide role models for group members as they begin their

first SUN group experience. These role models who struggle

for mastery and meet with success as a result of their

experiences in the SUN group have the potential to influence

teen group members positively at a time in their lives when

peer role models impact strongly on the process of identity

formation. The SUN group was developed in 1986 by Judith

Tellerman. The video and manual were initially developed in

12

1990 funded by public and private funds. The video was

close-captioned for the deaf community by Gallaudet

University in 1998 and the program was adapted for deaf

students by Peoples (1999).

The SUN program creates a pathway for family involvement

in the Health Education/Prevention process by giving parents

an opportunity to have a window to learn more about children

while preserving the confidentiality or their own children.

The leader shows the Talking Troubles video to the parents to

give them an opportunity to see the kinds of problems their

children are concerned about and to see the manner in which

their children communicate with each other. Then, after a

short discussion, the leader conducts a SUN group for the

parents so they can learn about the kind of experience their

children are having in the SUN program. The parents are

asked to present a problem of their own to solve. The

parents’ experience in the SUN group enables them to

reinforce the positive coping mechanisms their children are

learning while helping them to derive the same benefits from

the group experience as their children, giving them a common

13

positive experience around which to relate as a family.

Another way the SUN program can be used with parents is to

lead a multi-family group composed of parents and their

children. This can help families experience the universality

of the problems they share and build a sense of community

among the families based on a common positive experience of

helping each other.

The SUN program is called a socio-emotional problem-

solving group because the peer interaction is designed to

help group members solve or cope with problems that include

emotional factors that overwhelm and inhibit their capacity

to find a solution and/or coping strategy. The development of

a helpful interpersonal environment, or support system,

fosters the mastery of coping skills.

The structure of the 10 Steps to Problem Solving

contributes to a sense of purpose and focus that promotes a

feeling of security within the group members because they

have an overall sense of where they are headed. Learning the

sequence of the 10-step approach will help group members to

14

understand that they can approach problems systematically

without being overwhelmed by seemingly chaotic situations.

Within the overall structure they are encouraged to find

creative ways to solve their problems.

GROUP GUIDELINES. THE 10 STEPS TO PROBLEM-SOLVING: SUN-STEPS

1. Recognize you have a problem. Learn to become aware

that something is troubling you, that you feel bad or act a

certain way because you have a problem. The purpose is to

recognize the feelings that warn you that you have a

problem before reacting to those unacknowledged feelings.

Sometimes feelings are expressed through physical symptoms

or sensations, thoughts, and/or behaviors.

If you haven’t articulated the problem, put it into

words, you can recognize you have a problem by observing and

identifying: (a) your physical symptoms or sensations; (b)

your thoughts; (c) your feelings; and (d) your behavior.

Here are some examples:

(a). Physical Symptoms or Sensations. Examples: dry mouth,

butterflies in stomach, stomach pain, nausea, vomiting,

15

hands sweating, shaking, tightness in chest, tight feeling

in gut, muscle twitch, etc.

(b). Thoughts About the Problem. Thoughts accompany your

feelings. Recognizing your thoughts may help you to identify

the feelings. Examples: I don’t know how to do this; I am

stupid; Why does this always have to happen to me; There

must be something wrong with me; No one else has these

problems; I’m confused.

(c). Feelings. Examples: upset, sad, mad, frustrated, miserable. If you cannot put your

feelings into words it may help to describe or bring in an example that comes close to

how you are feeling, e.g. a song; picture; sculpture; character from a book, movie, play,

TV show or sports event; news event; event in nature; historical event. Try describing the

event through different modalities: (1) visual/seeing, (2) auditory/hearing, (3)

tactile/touching, (4) olfactory/smelling, (5) kinesthetic/body movement,

(6) gustatory/tasting,. While discussing the example, group members can help you

verbalize your feelings.

16

(d). Behaviors. Examples: shouting, hitting, swearing, jumping up and down, kicking,

throwing things, shoving, pushing.

2. Identify your problem. Verbalize the problem in

your mind and realize you need help with your problem.

3. Bring your problem to the group. Volunteer to

present a problem to the group. If more than one person

presents a problem, devise a method to select the first

problem to work on. The selection process should be fair

and inclusive. One approach could be to write the problems

on pieces of paper, place them in a receptacle and draw

each one, determining the order they will be worked on. If

a member says that the problem is urgent, the group can

move that problem to a high priority. If no one volunteers

to present a problem, then each member can write a problem

on a sheet of paper, anonymously. The papers are passed to

the group leader who reads them to the group. The group

then selects a problem. If you are the author of the

problem you may, at that time, choose to identify yourself.

After the group has selected a problem, check to see that

17

everyone understands it. Members ask questions to clarify

whether they understand the problem presented. When

everyone in the group says they understand the problem then

the group moves on to Step 4.

The important thing here is that the person with the

problem has an opportunity to give voice to the problem and

then has the experience of explaining the problem until

everyone in the group understands. For example, if the

person says, “I am having a problem because my brother is

mean to me,” group members might think, “I remember when I

had that problem,” and then assume they know what the other

person is feeling before asking the person with the problem

to describe more about the problem. It is important to ask

the person more about the problem and not just assume you

know what the person means because you remember having a

similar problem.

Giving voice to a problem and then having the experience of

others putting forth the energy to try to understand can be

very helpful to the person with the problem. Conversely the

group member trying to understand the problem can also

18

derive benefit from the accomplishment of learning to

understand another, from feeling more connected to others

and from realizing commonalities and universal experiences

that group members share.

4. Everyone in the group pretend that the selected

problem is yours. Describe your feelings about that

problem. Try to put yourself in the shoes of the person

presenting the problem. Imagine how you would feel if you

had the problem. If you can't, then try to imagine

something close to the problem. The purpose is to learn to

articulate the kinds of feelings associated with a

problem, feelings which may be inhibiting you from moving

ahead to solve the problem. After the feelings are

expressed, the leader asks the member who presented the

problem, "Do you feel anyone expressed feelings similar to

yours?" These similarities are discussed. The leader then

asks the member who presented the problem, "Do you feel

understood by others in the group? Do you feel anyone is

connecting with you?" If not, the group tries to

understand what the member is feeling.

19

In summary, (a) group members first try to express and

understand your own feelings while you pretend the problem

is your own. (b) Later, check to see how the person who

presented the problem feels. Is anyone close to how he

feels? Can you connect with how the member feels, be

authentic, and communicate the authentic feeling?

Step 4 contains two directives that are particularly

important to the development of an interpersonal environment

that fosters personal growth. First, Step 4 promotes cohesion

among group members by directing them to relate personally to

a single problem presented by one member. Each group member

pretends that the problem of one member is your own problem

and expresses feelings about it. By expressing these feelings

each member has an opportunity to explore one’s own inner

feelings while helping another member with a problem. In this

way, the process of bonding individuals cohesively around a

single goal is immediately begun. A common goal is a

necessary condition for cohesiveness in a group (Zangwill,

1981). Second, Step 4 promotes conscious development of

empathy between group members by directing them: (a) How

20

would you feel if you had the problem? (b) Check to see how

the person who presented the problem feels. Is anyone close

to how the member feels? Can we connect with how the member

feels, be authentic, and communicate that authentic feeling?

The impetus toward cohesive bonding around a single

goal, called "Co-Bonding," and the impetus toward conscious

development of empathy, called "Co-Empathy," (Tellerman &

Zangwill, 1989) are important features of the SUN group. All

of the group members are involved in each problem, both

personally and in an effort to help another member. This

gives each member a sense of personal involvement,

investment, and ownership of the task. Shure and Spivack

(1988) concluded "that it is the process of problem solving

and not the content of solutions that contributes to

behavioral adjustment in the long run." (p. 70) In the SUN

group members are immediately engaged in learning the

process, personally and by helping others.

5. Brainstorm for possible solutions to the problem.

What is your goal? How can you achieve it? When

21

brainstorming, all suggestions are listed without any value

being placed on them.

6. Discuss the pros and cons of suggested solutions.

Discuss alternative solutions to the problem. Discuss

possible outcomes of solutions, i.e. how they would affect

you and others, keeping in mind the ideal goal is the

improvement of your life while having a positive effect on

others and the environment.

7. Choose a good solution. The member who presented the problem chooses a

solution.

8. Plan in detail how to carry out the solution. The group helps the member who

presented the problem to develop a plan.

9. Carry out the problem-solving plan. The member who presented the problem

carries out the problem-solving plan. 10. Report the outcome of the problem-solving plan back to the group. Get

feedback from the group members on how well the outcome fitswith the goal. If you are

not satisfied with the outcome, discuss changes that could be made in the plan.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE SUN GROUP

22

The structure of the SUN group model is a synthesis

incorporating the educational principles of problem solving

with the psychological principles of group process. Steps 2,

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are similar to problem-solving steps

used in educational programs where problem solving is taught

(Clabby & Elias, 1987; Shure & Spivack, 1988). In the SUN

group the steps are not taught as they would be in a

classroom exercise. The steps are learned as part of a group

process. Steps 1, 3, and 4 encourage the exploration and

articulation of feelings so that group members will not feel

overwhelmed and inhibited in their capacity to find a

solution and/or coping strategy for their problems.

Since it is not possible to find an ideal solution to

every problem, the solution can be a matter of finding a way

to cope with the problem. This is where the peer interaction

under the careful direction of the adult leader is so

important. Youths may feel they are in a hopeless situation

in an unsupportive home environment. The group can provide an

alternate source of feedback to compensate for a lack of

feedback from the family.

23

When a youth realizes a problem situation cannot be

changed, e.g. terminal illness of a significant other, the

manner of coping with what one cannot change is important.

Under stress, people tend to use a familiar way of coping and

do this repetitively rather than think of a variety of ways

to cope. One of the purposes of the SUN group is to enlarge

each member's repertoire of coping skills. For example, a

member who is in a situation one cannot change may typically

try to avoid it (avoidant behavior). If the situation is

unavoidable the member may feel there are no options and may

not be able to come up with alternative options. With the

help of the group the member may discover something else to

try, such as seeking allies to tackle the problem (form

alliances). If the member tends to be a loner who has

difficulty making friends, learning how to form alliances

could be a valuable socialization experience.

With the help of the group, a member may discover a new

coping strategy but not know how to perform this new

behavior. Role-playing can be very useful to help a person

become accustomed to a new behavior. For example, a member

24

who failed a test and feels devastated may feel unable to

talk to a teacher to find out ways to bring the grade up. If

the group helps the member decide to talk to the teacher but

the member is not sure about how to do this it is a good idea

to rehearse the conversation in the group. Another member

could pretend to be the teacher, or the empty chair technique

could be used in which the member pretends the teacher is

sitting in an empty chair and practices talking to the

teacher.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PROBLEM-SOLVING: COMPETENCE, MASTERY AND

SELF-ESTEEM

As you move through life you encounter a demanding

environment. You must organize and regulate transactions

with that environment. You appraise the situation and decide

if you are competent to deal with the environment. As you

are doing this you are asking yourself, “What am I capable

of and what am I able to become?" (Masterpasqua, 1989). (p.

1366) You then inform yourself about what you believe are

the limits of your present level of functioning and the

25

limits of your future level of possible functioning. If you

say, "1 am not up to this and never will be," then you may

resort to self-destructive behavior as a reaction to this

futility.

These self-destructive behaviors may include substance

use, risk-taking behaviors, e.g. unsafe sexual practices,

aggressive social behavior, self-mutilation and other forms

of self-sabotage. In this regard Prevention is viewed on a

continuum of self-destructive behaviors where the end of the

continuum is death by suicide or "suicide by proximity,"

placing oneself in an environment that will lead to death

such as a gang or single car crash while under the influence

of substances. Prevention can occur at any point along the

continuum within the context of a Prevention Program to

prevent ATID (Alcohol, Tobacco and Illicit Drug) use and

abuse.

The more stress a person experiences, the more rigid

one’s thinking becomes due to physiological reactions in the

body (Selye, 1957). You may be unable to see constructive

options or possibilities due to a constriction in perception

26

and thinking, a kind of tunnel vision (Shneidman, 1985).

Researchers (Orbach, Bar-Joseph & Dror, 1990) have found

that suicidal people feel unable to solve their problems and

tend to avoid the problems, thinking that any solution will

lead to an unhappy outcome. If they make an attempt to solve

a problem, they tend to use the same solution repetitively.

They feel pessimistic about the future. A number of studies

have shown a relationship between an inability to solve

one's problems and the decision to end one's life (Schotte &

Clums, 1982, 1987; Carson & Johnson, 1985; Curry, Miller,

Waugh & Anderson, 1988). Bartfai et al (1990) found that the

ability to generate alternative solutions to a problem and

to generate new ideas was decreased in suicidal patients

while impulsive behavior increased.

You can be inhibited from solving a problem because

the emotions connected to the problem are so strong you

feel overwhelmed and unable to tackle your problem.

Sometimes the feelings are so strong that you are only

aware of your terrible feelings. You may not have a

conscious awareness of what your problem is or what led to

27

your terrible feelings. You just want to stop feeling so

terrible. You would do anything to stop feeling so bad if

you only knew what to do. If you feel emotional pain and

feel out-of-control about that pain, you could have an

urgent need to change the situation. The danger here is

that you will act on impulse, rather than with a considered

response.

The socio-emotional problem-solving group will help

members learn to hold a problem or impulse in consciousness

without acting on it; and then to give it a reasoned

response. This means that the action the person will take

can lead to an effective outcome which will improve the

person's life while having a positive effect on others. As

an individual achieves mastery in problem solving,

self-esteem is enhanced. This enhancement is based on a

solid foundation of knowledge that the individual can meet

the challenges which life presents. Competency in problem

solving supports and reinforces an individual's belief in

his potential and capabilities. It adds impetus to

increasing that belief and further advancing the level of

28

competency, creating an upward spiral of success. (Basch,

1988; Masterpasqua, 1989)

THE REWARDS OF BEING A GROUP MEMBER

Each member comes to the group with a private agenda,

concerned about personal problems and wanting to gain

something personal. The individual has no concerns for or

commitment to the other group members at the outset of the

group. Group members learn from the leader that by helping

each other they will each benefit greatly from the combined

power of the group members working together. They learn that

if they want help with their individual problems, the best

way to get this help is to work together to help each other

in the group. The rewards for working together are great and

unique. They cannot be achieved alone. (Hallowitz, 1990)

GROUP VALUES

One basic principle guides socioemotional problem solving: a sense of reciprocity;

i.e., when solving a problem hopefully one's solution will help oneself but not at the cost

of hurting others. Each group member thinks in terms of what is best for oneself first,

but also takes into consideration the needs of community, society, and the environment.

29

LEADING THE GROUP

The Goal of the Group Leader: create a safe

environment to help members find

something wonderful in themselves. The role of the group leader is to be trustworthy,

and to believe that the group can bring about a positive force for growth, healing, and

building a sense of competency and mastery. It is importantfor the leader to express

"concern, interest, liking for, and dedication to youth" (Rachman, 1989, p. 31).

The goal of the group leader is to create a safe,

protective environment where group members will feel free

to express their fears, weaknesses, concerns, hopes, and

dreams-an atmosphere that encourages growth where they will

not be attacked, laughed at, or scapegoated. This

environment can only be created with the cooperation of all

the group members. That is why it is essential that group

members be educated about the critical importance each one

has in the group. One of the ways for the leader to create

a safe environment is to value whatever a member produces.

Even if a member asks a question that challenges the

30

authority of the leader or the value of the 10 steps, be

supportive: "That's a good question. A lot of people wonder

about that.” If a person takes the risk to reveal a

problem, give recognition that this took a lot of guts:

“I’m glad you were able to risk.” (Hallowitz, 1991) Azima

(1989) emphasizes that the leader encourages the group

member “to think, not what to think” (p.10) because it is

of paramount importance for the group member to learn to

conceptualize and problem solve so that the member

separates from a dependent, angry relationship with

authority

TECHNIQUES OF GROUP LEADERSHIP

1. Structure

Structure is provided by the 10 Steps to Problem

Solving. The natural flow of conversation that is essential

to the group process will lead to deviation from the order

of the steps. It is important to strike a balance between

encouraging freedom of expression and being helpful in

bringing the group back to following the guidelines of the

10 steps. There is much to be gained from reminding the

31

group of the value of the 10-step process. Hearing and

internalizing the sequence of steps will help group members

to understand that they can approach problems systematically

without becoming overwhelmed by seemingly chaotic

situations.

The structure of the 10-step process is also an

anchoring mechanism for the group. It helps members to focus

and stay on task. Stay with the 10 steps but be flexible.

The value of the 10 steps is in the process, not in the

number of steps completed. Members can spend an entire

session on steps 1-3 with great benefit. In the next

session they might choose to continue on through steps 4-10

or to begin a new problem.

2. Empathy

Empathy occurs when the leader puts oneself into the

same experiential mode as group members, and demonstrates

or mirrors the essence of the group member's feelings and

thoughts here and now (Azima, 1989). The purpose of empathy

is to build caring, trust and compassion. The leader

attempts to "enter the members' world as an `empathic

32

visitor' to linger long enough to begin to see, feel and

think as they do" (Rachman, 1989, p. 31).

When members disclose problems such as substance use, phobias, or psychosomatic

symptoms the leader uses empathic acceptance and confrontation as a reflection of a

disguised problem, e.g., "I am sure that the pleasure you get from drugs is better than

anything else you have at the moment and until you have other pleasures and rewards, it

is not likely that you will be able to surrender your habit." (Azima, 1989, p. 14). By

acting in a nonjudgmental manner, the leader becomes a modelfor members to learn how

to be supportive and tolerant while confronting the symptom and searching for alternative

solutions to the underlying problem.

EVALUATION OF THE Solutions Unlimited Now – SUN(sm)

STRUCTURED GROUP COUNSELING MODEL

Clinkscale (2001) conducted an independent evaluation

of the SUN program funded by The Florida Chapter of the

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention in selected

33

middle- and high schools in two Florida school systems:

Orange and Broward counties.

“This report covers findings from Florida pilot tests of the

SUN model in both Orange (Orlando) and Broward (Ft.

Lauderdale) county school districts. Orange implemented in

middle and high schools both semesters of the 2000-2001

school year while Broward did a limited pilot in two high

schools. In the Orlando area, SUN groups were run by trained

counselors from the We Care Crisis Center at the request of

Orange County middle and high schools. Orange SUN group

participants (N=212) were considered as having “problem

behaviors”. Over 20 percent admitted to suicidal ideations.

Broward’s implementation involved 52 high school students,

mostly juniors and seniors, in the spring semester, 2001.

Broward implemented SUN as part of their peer-counseling

program as one means of training students for mentoring and

peer counseling programs. Findings for Orange and Broward

schools are reported separately since the SUN groups were

used for different purposes.

34

The overall research/evaluation design consists of two

interrelated sub-studies (a) an evaluation questionnaire

designed for self-administration at the conclusion of the 10

SUN group steps, and (b) facilitation of a focus group of

SUN group leaders to assess their reactions to questionnaire

findings and to get suggestions for improvement. The time

frame for the evaluation is the 2000-2001 school year. Each

study offers a different perspective on the value of the SUN

intervention. The evaluation questionnaire was designed to

define the extent to which participants benefited from their

SUN experience in terms of desired outcome measures, based

on an extensive review of recent research in child social

development. This literature review substantiates the

precepts, validity, and potential of the SUN model. Each of

the 10 steps in the process resonates with one or more

aspects of social competency and social capital building.

The group dynamic relies on the benefits to be gained from

an enhanced sense of belonging (bonding), trust of others,

empathy, empowerment, and critical thinking skills. This is

sometimes referred to as an ecological approach.” (pp. 3-4)

35

Clinkscale cites examples of supporting literature

citations: (a) Benard (1994) found it is important to

provide activities in schools that facilitate understanding

of multiple perspectives. People are better able to

entertain perspectives different from their own if they do

not feel threatened. Groups that have a sense of shared

responsibility and provide a sense of belonging create

ongoing opportunities for self-reflection, critical inquiry,

problem solving, and dialogue. (b) To develop resilience in

students, Henderson and Milstein (1996) recommend: (1)

increase pro-social bonding, (2) set clear, consistent

boundaries, (3) teach life skills, (4) provide caring and

support, (5) set and communicate high expectations, (6)

provide opportunities for meaningful participation. (c)

Pikes, Burrell, and Holiday (1998) recommend implementing

resilience-building exercises based on five themes described

by Wang, Haertel, and Walberg (1995): (1) competency –

feeling successful, (2) belonging – feeling valued, (3)

usefulness – feeling needed, (4) potency – feeling

empowered, (5) optimism – feeling encouraged and hopeful.

36

(d) McCombs and Pope (1995) cite Roger Mills’ theories of

meta-cognition as a basis to help people learn to think

about their thought processes and to recognize how thoughts

influence one’s beliefs, moods, and behaviors. When youths

are taught to understand and control their thinking they can

step outside the influence of negative beliefs about their

abilities or fear of failure. Consequently they access

higher-level processes such as insight, creativity, wisdom,

and common sense. This enables them to develop resilience

traits of self-esteem, self-efficacy, autonomy, and

optimism, leading to positive motivation.

Clinkscale’s report continues, “An evaluation design

enabling the intervention group to be compared to a control

group was not practical given the school environment.

Instead, the questionnaire was set up so that the respondent

was asked to report on level of benefit across 19 outcome

measures DUE TO THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE SUN GROUP. This

addresses the issue of causation without having to resort to

a controlled experimental design. This structure helps to

quantify the extent participants benefited from their

37

experience; we rely on the strength of existing science-

based literature to project the desired cognitive and

behavioral outcomes.

The evaluation questionnaire was self-administered by

SUN participants at the last group meeting. Students were

told in the beginning that their responses would be

confidential and seen only by the evaluators. No names were

placed on the forms. Since SUN group leaders have a very

high level of respect and trust by their participants,

assurances of confidentiality were believed. The evaluator,

while sitting in on five different Orange County schools

group meetings, directly observed this respect and trust.

The promise of confidentiality was important so that

respondents would have no incentive to slant their answers

one-way or the other. The evaluation strategy was crafted

around available funds and the practical feasibility of

collecting data on public school children. A shortcoming of

the evaluation model is there was no longitudinal follow-up

to verify outcomes at later points in time. The evaluation

findings (post-test questionnaire and group leader focus

38

groups) certainly inform the issue of SUN’s effectiveness,

at least in the short-term. Longer-term outcome

verification (social competencies, behavior, school

performance, etc.) should be the subject of subsequent

longer-term evaluations.

Orange County Public Schools

These findings represent the 212 students participating

in a SUN program in middle and high schools in Orange County

(Orlando) during the fall and spring semesters, 2000-2001

school year. These SUN groups were composed of students

referred to SUN counseling by teachers and guidance

counselors as having “problem behaviors” and in need of

strengthening protective factors such as decision-making

skills, social competencies, self-esteem, anger control,

good family and/or peer relationships, and respect for

others. These children are considered at risk of suicide,

drug addiction, dropping-out, poor school performance and

attendance, and juvenile justice.

School-based SAFE coordinators managed the referral process.

Trained counselors at the We Care Crisis Center in Orlando

39

ran the SUN groups. Groups were held in the school during

normal school hours. The We Care Crisis Center SUN group

counselors made an innovative adaptation to the SUN format

by bringing one of their own issues to group – teen suicide.

They showed a film, educated the group about warning signs,

and who to go to for help. Students talked quite freely

about suicidal ideations of their own or of their friends.

The sharing of such sensitive information helped bond to the

group and create trust (social capital).

During the school year there were approximately 260

“problem behavior” students referred to 35 different SUN

groups. Of that number, approximately 235 stayed with the

program. On average, one child per group dropped out

(dropout rate approximately 10 %). The findings reported

herein are about the 212 kids completing the program with a

group attendance rate of at least 70% of the group meetings,

including the last meeting at which time they completed

their evaluation forms. Most (70%) of the participants were

from middle schools. Most (80%) were in grades 7-9. About

50% of the 212 participants were in the 8th grade. Girls

40

represented 76% of all participants. Many (50%) were in the

8th grade. Most of the participants were from lower

economic status families and had been referred for “problem

behaviors” or at risk of suicide, substance abuse, school

drop-out, and juvenile crime. The race/ethnicity composition

was White (56%), African American (22%), Hispanic (18%),

Asian/Pacific Islanders (1%), and Other (4%).1

Summary results of the self-administered evaluation

questionnaire are presented below. The response

“definitely” is considered a strong positive affirmation of

the SUN experience, as related to the specific question.

The response “think so” is also considered positive, but of

less intensity. The cumulative percent of both answers

(column 5 in the findings table) is considered the primary

measure of positive benefit. All subgroups of SUN

participants consistently reported remarkably high levels of

benefit across all question domains.

Decision-Making Competencies. Several questions were linked

to increased decision-making competencies. For example,

1 Percentages total over 100% due to rounding.

41

question 1 asked, “ Has your experience in this SUN group

helped you to learn to make better decisions?”

Approximately 86% answered either “definitely” (45%) or

“think so” (41%). Item 2 offered the statement “In the

group I learned to put a problem into words and explain it

to another person” had an 87% response for either

“definitely” (49%) or “think so” (37%). To the Item 3

statement “I learned that many problems have more than one

solution, and that it takes time to figure out which one is

best” approximately 93% of respondents answered either

“definitely” (67%) or “think so” (26%). Item 11 “My group

experience taught me that it’s good to have other people’s

opinions about a problem” had a response rate of 92% for

either “definitely” (63%) or “Think so” (29%). Improved

decision-making competencies are a core goal of the SUN

program. Respondents affirmed that this goal was being met.

Impulsive Behavior (Anger) Control. Item 14 offered the

statement, “Being in the group taught me that fighting with

people is no way to solve a problem”. Approximately three-

quarters (76%) answered either “definitely (46%) or “think

42

so” (30%). Item 18, “I would encourage a friend to get lots

of advice before taking action” had a 90% “definitely” (65%)

or “think so” (25%) response rate. Item 15, “What I learned

in the group will help me control my temper” had a 63%

response rate for “definitely” (32%) or “Think so” (31%).

Only 11% answered “No”. Many of the kids were referred to

SUN groups for anger control. This is another core goal of

the SUN program. The response pattern to these evaluation

outcomes suggests that SUN is effective at teaching improved

anger control, learning to think about consequences rather

than reacting impulsively, and reduction of self-destructive

behaviors.

Empathy, Self-Esteem and Belonging. Research shows that self-

esteem, empathy for the feelings of others and a sense of

belonging to family, friends, and community (school) are

significant protective factors/assets or social capital for

children. When children identify (bond or connect) with

positive role models and values they are less inclined to

engage in negative or unaccepted behaviors. To statement 4,

“Being in the group made me feel better about myself,” 76%

43

of kids reported definitely (43%) or think so (32%). To

statement 9 “Since being in the group I feel more like I can

fit in or belong,” 69% of kids responded definitely (38%) or

think so (31%). Belonging is a major factor in social

capital. And to statement 13, “Since being in the group, I

feel like I can get along better with my friends and

family,” 64% of kids responded definitely (36%) or think so

(28%). Empathy, self-esteem and belonging are essential

ingredients of social capital and protective factors. Over

all statements in this domain, the majority of SUN

participants reported positive outcomes.

Improved School Performance and Avoidance of Drugs. Although the

SUN group model does not specifically direct children to

address these issues, favorable outcomes of the group

experience are aligned with protective factors known to link

to school performance and avoidance of drugs. Accordingly,

the evaluation form covered these subjects. This assertion

is based on the research literature linking risk of alcohol,

tobacco and illicit drug (ATID) use and poor school

performance to weak protective factors and social capital in

44

children. There are also strong links to co-occurring

mental health disorders in children (Clinkscale, 2000).

Approximately 80% of respondents answered either

“definitely” (47%) or “think so” (33%) to Item 10 “What I

learned in this group will help me stay in school and do

better.” Item 8 offered the statement, “My group experience

will help me avoid using tobacco, alcohol or drugs” About

70% (7 out of 10) of respondents reported either

“definitely” (47%) or “think so” (23%). This positive

attitude about school and drugs resulting from a SUN group

experience reinforces current research and is considered

extraordinary by prevention intervention standards. The

bonding and cognitive problem-solving skills learned in the

SUN groups is apparently having the effect of influencing

them in a positive direction with regard to staying in

school and avoiding ATID use.

Summary Findings from Evaluation Questionnaire: Orange,

2000-2001:

Questions N= Percent

Percent

Percent

Defini

Percent

Don’tPercent No

45

Definitely

ThinkSo

telyOr

ThinkSo

Know

1. Has your experience in this Sungroup helped you to learn how to make

better decisions?212 44.8 40.6 85.4 9.9 4.7

2. In the group I learned to put aproblem into words and explain it to

others.211 49.3 37.4 86.7 10.0 3.3

3. I learned that many problems havemore than one solution, and that it

takes time to figure out which one isbest.

211 67.3 25.6 92.9 6.2 0.9

4. Being in the group made me feelbetter about myself. 212 43.4 32.1 75.5 16.5 8.0

5. My group experience taught methat I don’t have to face my problemsalone; it’s better to seek help andsupport from adults or other kids.

212 51.4 34.0 85.4 11.8 2.8

6. Did being in the group help youunderstand other kids better? 211 51.2 34.1 85.3 10.0 4.7

7. Did being in the group help otherkids understand you better? 212 22.6 38.7 61.3 30.2 8.5

8. My group experience will help meavoid using tobacco, alcohol or

drugs.212 47.2 22.6 69.8 18.4 11.8

9. Since being in the group I feelmore like I can fit in or belong. 211 37.9 31.3 69.2 17.5 13.3

10. What I learned in this group willhelp me stay in school and do better. 210 46.7 32.9 79.5 15.2 5.2

11. My group experience taught methat it’s good to have other people’s

opinions about a problem.209 62.7 29.2 91.9 4.8 3.3

12. My group experience taught methat other kids have feelings andproblems like some of my own.

210 68.1 25.2 93.3 4.3 2.4

13. Since being in the group, I feellike I can get along better with my

friends and family.210 36.2 27.6 63.8 25.2 11.0

14. Being in the group taught me thatfighting with people is no way to

solve a problem.210 46.2 29.5 75.7 15.7 8.6

15. What I learned in this group willhelp me control my temper. 210 31.9 31.0 62.9 25.7 11.4

16. Our group leader taught me thatsome adults can be very understandingand helpful when kids have troubles.

208 65.4 28.4 93.8 4.8 1.4

17. I feel better able to deal withmy own problems; today and in the

future.209 42.1 43.1 85.2 12.7 1.9

46

18. I would encourage a friend to getlots of advice before taking action. 211 65.4 24.6 90.0 9.5 0.5

19. Would you recommend a SUN groupto a friend? 212 72.5 19.0 91.5 7.1 1.4

Note: Respondents understood and considered their answers to be confidential (not seen byanyone other than evaluators).

47

Overall Satisfaction. A good measure of the value of any

intervention is the extent to which the subjects would

recommend the experience to a friend. The last statement in

the evaluation questionnaire was item 19, “Would you

recommend a SUN group to a friend.” Almost 92% (9 out of 10

participants) responded either definitely (73%) or think so

(19%). A Lykert-type scoring was also performed on the

responses using a simple weighting scheme of definitely=3,

think-so=2, don’t know=1, and no=0. The summary findings

from this analysis are shown below. This distribution of

individual aggregate (all 19 questions/item) responses

produces a mean (average) for all 212 participants of 2.26.

48

Score Intervals

3.002.88

2.752.63

2.502.38

2.252.13

2.001.88

1.751.63

1.501.38

1.251.13

1.00.88

Distribution of Individual Scores

Orange County Schools (2000-2001 School Year)

Frequency

30

20

10

0

Std. Dev = .46 Mean = 2.26N = 212.00

This score of 2.26 is taken to mean that, as a whole, the

respondents gave their SUN experience a very high rating

(between “definitely” and “think-so”). With appropriate

risk adjustments,2 these data may prove useful as a baseline

to subsequent evaluations. Analysis of variance showed some

scoring differences between grade levels, gender and

race/ethnicity for all questions but not enough to be

statistically significant or programmatically meaningful.

2 Risk adjustment variables may include socio-economic, medical, and behavioral measures to characterize SUN group participants; and motives of participants, setting (school vs. juvenile justice or drug treatment clinic), and the skill of the SUN group leader.

49

The other evaluation perspective (focus groups with SUN

group leaders) resulted in a general validation of these

findings based on their own observations and experiences and

some very useful suggestions on how questions or items could

be worded to tighten up response validities. In general,

the group found the evaluation findings to be valid and

should encourage other schools and community-based child-

serving systems of care to give the SUN model a try.

Broward County High Schools

Two high schools implemented SUN in the spring semester

of the 2000-2001 school year. They were McArthur High

School in Hollywood and Tocavella High School in Coral

Springs. A total of 52 students participated in SUN groups

as part of Broward County school peer counseling curriculum.

The purpose of the peer-counseling program is to train

students to counsel other students in need, act as mentors

where appropriate, and arbitrate conflicts between students

or with teachers. Peer counseling is an elective. Students

apply and are “accepted” into the program on the basis of

having reasonable grades, good behavior, and otherwise show

50

promise to become good peer counselors. This is in sharp

contrast to kids going through SUN groups in Orange County

where they were referred to the program by SAFE coordinators

for having “problem behaviors” and at high risk for multiple

problems at home and at school. Given these differences in

the two very different student populations, no comparisons

are made between the outcomes of the two programs other than

for purposes of identifying general similarities or

differences. Further, since the Broward group of students

is too small for statistical interpretations, the data are

included here as baseline for future evaluations in Broward.

This group of 52 well-behaved students, mostly female

high school juniors and seniors, gave high marks to their

SUN experience. On most questions, they responded

definitely or think so at least 75% of the time. The

percentages for items related to temper control (Q15= 59%),

getting along better with family and friends (Q13 = 63.5%),

staying in school (Q10 = 65.4%), avoiding tobacco, alcohol

or drugs (Q8 = 61.5%), and feeling that they may be better

understood by other kids (Q7 = 65.4%); are low only relative

51

to the average for all 19 items. The finding to keep in mind

is that 6 out of 10 SUN participants felt positive about

their experience in these areas. That is a very positive

finding. More data is needed in Broward before concrete

findings can be offered.

General Conclusions

These findings suggest that the SUN model has an

ability to produce remarkable results in terms of improved

cognitive decision-making and social skills in both troubled

and normative teens and pre-teens. The review of recent

scientific research in child social development and behavior

indicates that the protective factors and social capital

gained by SUN participants, based on their own assessment,

will enhance their social development and their ability to

overcome risk factors at home, among peers, at school, and

the community-at-large. This supports the argument for an

ecological approach to building protective factors. More

evaluation work is needed to follow-up on SUN participants

in terms of their subsequent behavior, school performance,

and social development; e.g., how persistent will assets

52

gained during the SUN experience be as time goes by? In the

meantime, this evaluation has produced ample evidence that

the SUN model is a very effective intervention – as viewed

by experts – the participants themselves.”(pp. 4-9)

RESOURCE LIST

Azima, F.J. (1989). Confrontation, empathy, and interpretation. In F.J. Azima & L.H. Richmond (Eds.) Adolescent Group Psychotherapy (pp. 3-20). Madison: International Universities Press.

Bartfai, A., Winborg, I.M., Nordstrom, P., & Asberg, M. (1990). Suicidal behavior & cognitive flexibility: Design & verbal fluency after attempted suicide. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 20: 254-266.

Basch, M.F. (1988). Understanding Psychotherapy. New York: BasicBooks, Inc.

Benard, B. (1990a). Youth service: From youth as problems to youth as resources. Prevention Forum, 10(2), 6-14.

Benard, B. (1990b). The Case for Peers. Portland, OR: Far WestLaboratory for Educational Research and Development.

Benard, B. (December, 1994). The Health Realizationapproach to resiliency. Western Center News, 8(1), 6-7.

Benard, B. (1995, August). Fostering resilience in children. ERIC Digest. (p. 3). Urbana: University of Illinois.

53

Bernard, B. (1996, Spring). Creating resiliency-enhancing schools: Relationships, motivating beliefs, and school-wide reform. Resiliency in Action, 5-8.

Carroll, P. (1985). Group Work: Leading in the Here and Now [Video]. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Counseling & Development.

Carson, N.D., & Johnson, R.D. (1985). Suicidal thoughts andproblem-solving preparation among college students. Journal of College Student Personnel. 26: 484-487.

Clabby, J.F. & Elias, M.J. (1986). Teach Your Child Decision Making. New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc.

Clinkscale, R. (2001). Evaluation of the Solutions Unlimited Now –SUN(sm) Structured Group Counseling Models. Unpublished technical report.

Clinkscale, R. (2000). Co-occurring mental health and substance abuse

disorders in children: the nexus of mental health andsubstance abuse. Paper

prepared for the Substance Abuse and Mental HealthServices Administration,

US Department of Health and Human Services.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of OptimalExperience. New York: Harper & Row.

Curry, J.F., Miller, Y., Waugh, S., & Anderson, W.B. (1988). Depressed, conduct disordered, and suicidal adolescents: Coping and social relationships. Paper presented at the 96th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association.

Dishion, T.J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999, September).When interventions harm: peer groups and problem behavior. AmericanPsychologist. 54(9):755-763.

Golding, W. (1999). Lord of the Flies. NY: Penguin Putnam, Inc.

54

Hallowitz, E. (1990). Group Psychotherapy. Lecture atUniversity of Chicago, Illinois.

Henderson, N. & Milstein, M. (1996). Resiliency in Schools: Making itHappen for Students and Educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Johnson, D. and Johnson, R. (1983). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company

Masterpasqua, F. (1989). A competence paradigm forpsychological practice. American Psychologist, 44:1366-1371.

McCombs, B. and Pope, J. (1995). Motivating Hard to Reach Students.Hyattsville, MD: American Psychological Association.

Orbach, I., Bar-Joseph, H. & Dior, N. (1990). Styles of problem solving in suicidal individuals. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. 20: 56-64.

O’Rourke, K. & Wortbyt, J.C. (1996). Support Groups for Children. Washington, DC: Accelerated Development.

Peoples, K. and Campbell, G. (1999, August). Psychodynamic/Cognitive Structured Problem-Solving Groups in the Hearing and Deaf Community. Workshop presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

Pikes, T., Burrell, B. and Holliday, C. (1998, Spring). Using academic strategies to build resilience. Reaching Today’s Youth: the Community of Caring Journal. 2(3), 44-47.

Rachman, A.W. (1989). Identity group psychotherapy with adolescents: A reformulation. In F.J. Azima & L.H. Richmond, (Eds.). Adolescent Group Psychotherapy. (pp. 21-42). Madison: International Universities Press.

55

Riley, E.M. (1990). Starting America: The story of Independence Hall. Gettysburg, PA: Thomas Publications.

Schechtman, Z. (2001, June). Interpretives (confrontation, interpretation, and feedback) in preadolescent counseling groups. Group Dynamics Theory, Research, and Practice, 5:2, 124-135.

Schechtman, Z. (2001). Process research in child group counseling/psychotherapy. The Group Circle, March, 3-4.

Scheidlinger, S. (2000). The group psychotherapy movement atthe millennium: Some historic perspectives. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 50, 315-339.

Schonberg, R. and Tellerman, J. (1997). The use of the SUN group program with high-risk adolescents. Journal of Child and Adolescent Group Therapy. 7 (3) 107-118.

Schotte, D.E., & Clum, G.A. (1982). Suicide ideation in a college population: A test of a model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 50: 690-696.

Schotte, D.E.,& Clum, G.A. (1987). Problem-solving skills in suicidal psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology. 55: 49-54.

Segal, J. & Segal, Z. (1986, Summer). The powerful world ofpeer relationships. American Educator, 14-45.

Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shneidman, E.S. (1987). A psychological approach to suicide. In G.R. Vanden Bos and B.K. Bryant (Eds). Cataclysms, Crises, and Catastrophes. (pp. 147-184). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

56

Shneidman, E.S. (1985). Definition of Suicide. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Shure, M.B. & Spivack, G. (1988). Interpersonal cognitive problem solving. In R.H. Price, E.L. Cowen, R.P. Lorion, & J. Ramos-McKay, (Eds.). 14 ounces of Prevention. (pp. 69-82). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative Learning: Theory Research, and Practice.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Soo, E. (2001). (Ed.). Journal of Child and Adolescent Group Therapy. Personal communication.

Tellerman, J.S. & Zangwill, W.1. (1989). Co-Bonding and co-empathy: Powerful techniques in group process. Unpublished manuscript.

Tellerman, J. (1991, 1994). Solutions Unlimited Now (SUN): Talking Troubles, Group Leader Manual. Alexandria, VA: Distributed by the

American Counseling Association.

Tellerman, J. (1991, 1994). Solutions Unlimited Now (SUN): Talking Troubles [Film]. Alexandria, VA: Distributed by the American Counseling Association.

Tellerman, J. (1999). Solutions Unlimited Now (SUN): Talking Troubles, Group

Leader Manual. Verona, WI: Attainment Co.

Tellerman, J. (1999). Solutions Unlimited Now (SUN): Talking Trouble,[Film]. Verona, WI: Attainment Co.

United States Departments of Education and Justice (1998). Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools. Washington,DC.

Vinogradov, S. & Yalom, I.D. (1989). Group Psychotherapy.Washington, D.C.:

57

American Psychiatric Press, lnc.

Weist MD. (2001). Toward a public mental health promotion and intervention system for youth. Journal of School Health. 71(3):101-104.

Zangwill, W.I. (1981). Success with People. Chicago: University of Chicago.

58