Introduction

Problem-solving is probably one of the most important, but least recognised models for social work. On of the key changes between the 2001 ‘International Definition of Social Work’ and the 2014 ‘Global Definition of Social Work’ is the removal of the term ‘problem solving’ from the definition. The concept is still there, in terms of “addressing life challenges and enhancing wellbeing” (IFSW, 2014), but it is less strongly emphasised.

Yet the fact remains that people tend to access social work services when they are facing problems, and tend to look to social workers to support them in solving those problems. For this reason, problem-solving remains and important concept in social work practice.

One of the difficulties is that problem-solving tends to be taken for granted, to be seen as not requiring its own model. But the reality is that solving problems effectively and ethically is hard work, and without a set of guiding principles is unlikely to be consistently done well. For this reason, problem-solving deserves to be seen as a model in its own rights.

A Word of Warning

There is no single, universal, and correct way to solve problems. Multiple problem-solving models exist. Each of these models will be highly appropriate for some situations, and less appropriate for others. As a result, this page will focus on a generic, broadly applicable model of problem-solving. It does not claim to be ‘the only way’ or even ‘the best way’ to solve problems, it only aims to provide a sound overall framework in which problems can be addressed.

Building on  Solid Foundations

As the Practice Pyramid makes clear, the model and skills of problem-solving can only take place in a context of effective working relationships, which use the best of your personal qualities and attributes, and are built on your core values and beliefs.

When it comes to defining the kinds of relationships required for effective problem-solving, Neil Thompson provides a really helpful model, which he calls PRECISE. He argues that effective problem-solving in social work practice rests on seven key principles.

Good problem-solving in social work is:

Partnership-based

Realistic

Empowering

Creative

Integrated

Systematic and

Effective

I will consider each of these in turn.

Partnership-based

Whilst it is true that usually the relationship between the social worker and the service user is not truly equal, the aim is always to keep the power differences to a minimum. If people feel pressured, if they believe they are being forced to change, then they will resist change, even if the change is something they want. When people feel accepted and respected, when they feel they are being heard and taken seriously they will be more willing to take risks and to work towards behaviour change.

This was the point that was made in the page on the Practice Pyramid where I discussed the types of relationships that are most conducive to good social work practice. In reality, this is done in very practical ways. It means that the social worker will:

Listen to the service user with full attention, listening not just to the words but to the body language and to the meanings and intentions behind their words and actions. (See the Person-Centred Approach)

Allow the service user to define their problems and their goals in ways that are consistent with the service user’s values and beliefs.

Honour problem-solving strategies and strengths of the service user.

Select methods of intervention that are congruent with the person they are working with.

See the service user as a person to be worked with, not a problem to be solved or managed.

Evaluate the success of the work using criteria relevant to the service user.

An important point about Partnership working is that often social workers are not very good at assessing the quality of the relationship. At times the social worker may believe that they have a respectful relationship with the service user, but this is not how the service user experiences it. At other times the social worker may believe that their relationship with the service user is awful, yet the service user may experience it was being very helpful. It is important for social workers to keep a close eye on the quality of their relationships and regularly seek feedback on how they are doing

Realistic

Thompson uses the concept of being ‘realistic’ in two senses. The first is perhaps best understood as ‘achievable’. The service user and the social worker must create targets or goals for their work that both believe to be achievable. If either believes that what is being attempted is impossible the result is likely to be wasted effort at best and actively harmful at worse.

The second sense of perhaps closer to what might be called ‘balanced’. For example, a social worker needs to have both a belief in the strengths of the service user, but also an appreciation of the difficulties faced by them. They need the balance that Lord Laming described as ‘respectful uncertainty’; a faith in the service user balanced with an acceptance that for various reasons service users may present you with less than the whole truth, or even out-and-out lies.

Perhaps the best way to understand the quality that Thompson means by saying that the relationship needs to be realistic is to think of this in terms of honesty. Social workers need to be honest about the benefits of the work that they do, but also about the risks faced by the service user both with compliance and with refusal to comply. Social workers cannot offer unrestricted confidentiality. If a parent is honest about how they parent this may result in the social worker being able to help them parent, but it could also result in a child being removed. If a person with a mental health difficulty is honest about the experiences they are having this can help in the process of recovery, but it could also result in the person being sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Social workers need to have the confidence and the courage to be realistic about this with service users. Anything less than that, even when done with the intention of not hurting the service user, may result in far more harm than good.

Effective social work problem-solving requires a delicate balance of quiet optimism with protective pessimism, expecting the best but preparing for the worst. At the same time, it requires a blend of unconditional positive regard and healthy scepticism. This needs to be bound up in a respectful partnership.

Empowering

Empowering is a complex word, and one that I have ambivalent feelings towards. The idea that social workers can ‘empower’ service users carries strong risks of paternalism or being patronising. The idea that a social worker can somehow give or share their power with a service user seems to me to reinforce the hierarchy of power in the relationship rather than reduce it. However what is more important is that the social worker does not act in ways that further disempower the service user.

This is one of the key reasons why social workers need a model of effective, efficient, empowering problem solving. Coercing or advising models of problem solving may provide short-term relief from a problem, but they usually create either resistance, where the person finds ways to undermine the proposed solutions, or dependency, where the person takes no credit for the solution and so does not feel that they can solve their problems without the presence of the social worker.

When social workers listen to service users, when they build on service users existing strengths and previous problem-solving strategies, when they collaboratively build new solutions rather than telling people what to do, then the problem solving can be empowering. In many ways, the greatest compliment a social worker can be given at the end of a piece of problem-solving work is for the service user to say ‘I did it. I didn’t really need your help, did I?’ When that is said, you know that you have empowered the service user to take control of their own life.

Even in situations where things cannot be a partnership, such as when removing children using legal powers or sectioning someone under the Mental Health Act, the social worker can still find ways to keep the service user informed and able to contribute to the process and to the decision making. At times this may be very limited, and may even feel tokenistic, but if the social worker is genuinely trying to build on the power of the service user, it is likely that eventually the service user will know and appreciate this.

Creative

A common-sense bottom line in problem solving is ‘if the solution was easy and obvious the person would already be using it.’ As a result of this when a social worker is engaged in problem-solving with a service user there will be a need to be creative and flexible; to be willing to experiment with novel ways to reach the goals. This can be a major challenge in social work practice.

The reality is that when people are under pressure, when time and resources are low and demands are high, the tendency is to become more rigid in our behaviour. We fall back on policies, procedures, and practice, onto ready-made, pre-set solutions and on habits. This often leads to very unproductive work and high levels of stress and dissatisfaction.

Much of ‘The People Solutions Sourcebook’ is dedicated to a variety of creative problem-solving strategies, more than I can go into here. All of these require the social worker to bring to the work a sense of rigorous creativity and playful seriousness. These sound contradictory but as Thompson points out the idea that only artistic bohemian types can be creative is a myth, and that whilst dealing with serious ideas retaining a child-like sense of curiosity, fun and playfulness in the relationship greatly increases the chance of effective work.

The Lady with the Alligator Purse

Miss Lucy had a baby,
His name was Tiny Tim.
She put him in the bathtub,
To see if he could swim.

He drank up all the water.
He ate up all the soap.
He tried to eat the bathtub,
But it wouldn’t go down his throat.

Miss Lucy called the doctor,
Miss Lucy called the nurse.
Miss Lucy called the lady
With the alligator purse.

“Mumps,” said the doctor.
“Measles,” said the nurse.
“Hiccups,” said the lady
With the alligator purse.

Out went the doctor.
Out went the nurse.
Out went the lady
With the alligator purse.

Systematic

For Thompson, the idea of being systematic relates primarily to the importance of knowing what you are trying to achieve and how you are attempting to achieve it. This is vital to good problem solving as it helps prevent two dangers. The first is drift. This is where instead of having clearly defined end points and a clearly established strategy to reach it the social worker and the service user meet without any clear understanding of what they are doing or whether they are heading in the right direction or not. The second is what I might call the ‘unlike tea’ solutions. This name is from the experiences of Arthur Dent in the Douglas Adams’ book ‘The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. There is a danger that social workers will follow procedures in a way that looks systematic, but which fails to understand the theory that underpins the systems. This means that service users end up being ‘processed’ without regard for their personal needs and circumstances rather than being treated as an individual.

Effective

The final quality Thompson talks about in his effective problem solving is the importance of focusing on what is effective. It is important to remember that service users have many demands on their time and resources, and social workers should seek to be as effective as possible to avoid placing additional demands upon the service users. At the same time social workers have limited time and resources, so these two need to be mobilised wisely.

Effectiveness comes from a variety of sources. At its most basic level, it is embedded in the social work process that was discussed in chapter 2. The review and evaluation phase of the social work process should be about assessing whether or not the planned interventions are having the desired effects or not.

In terms of choosing the most effective interventions the social worker can begin with the service user’s own wisdom, drawing on what they have previously or are currently finding helpful. Building on successful strategies is usually more effective than building new strategies from scratch. In the same way, social workers will develop a range of proven strategies as their experience develops.

Use of theories themselves can help increase effectiveness, especially when these have been practiced and developed. At first, new strategies may be awkward or ineffective, but with practice and reflection, they can become more effective.

Finally, social workers can draw upon research-based evidence to discover which interventions are most likely to be effective in a given situation. Evidence-based practice is something that I will return to later in the site.

The PRECISE model provides a useful framework for creating the fundamental relationship for problem-solving, but it does not in itself give a framework for solving problems. For this Thompson provides a 10-step problem-solving process.

Thompson’s 10-Step Problem Solving Process

Before setting out the ten steps it is important to reinforce Thompson’s point that problem-solving has to take place within a relationship with the qualities from the PRECISE framework. Before you can begin effective problem solving you need to have developed a partnership which is honest and realistic; which is empowering and creative; and which is integrated and systematic. If those conditions are not met then problem solving is unlikely to be effective. However, once those conditions are met then it is possible to move on to solving problems.

Step One – Information Gathering

The first step in the problem-solving process is information gathering. This is deceptively easy to state, but far more difficult to do in practice. The kinds of problems encountered by service users are usually complex, chaotic and multi-faceted. On top of that when the service user and social worker first meet the service user will often present their problems in a partial or a distorted way. It takes both patience and skill to unpick the service user’s story in order to grasp all the details of the problems that you are trying to solve.

This is one of the key reasons that the communication skills and the theories discussed in Chapter 5 are so important. It is vital that social workers can both listen effectively to what a service user is communicating and can ask questions and use other techniques that will gather important information.

The information required is not just about the problem, as important as that is. The social worker must also gather information about the strengths and resources the service user has and about the goals and desires of the service user.

In terms of the problem, it is important to go for ‘sensory-specific details’, when the problem arises what do you see, hear, feel and do? Who does what, when and where? What things tend to trigger the problem? What is the sequence of events that make up the problem? What are the consequences of the problem? This information is vital for effective problem solving.

In addition to that, it is important to gather information on what the service user has already tried. What has worked? Can we try that again? What has not worked? Can we do it differently, or can we do something else?

Finally, what are the goals? This is important as the absence of a problem is rarely the best solution. The best solution is usually the presence of something better than the problem. One of the most powerful ways of achieving this is to ask questions using the word ‘instead’? ‘How would you like to feel instead?’ ‘What do you want instead of that?’ This shifts attention from seeing the problem as the whole story to seeing the problem as a temporary phase on a journey to somewhere better.

This is a stage where it is important to focus on the Systematic part of the PRECISE model. It is possible to gather so much information that both the worker and the service user are overwhelmed by the amount of information. Before starting the problem-solving process it is helpful to think about what information is required in order to do your job. It is a bad idea to randomly throw out questions in order to gather as much information as possible. Instead, questions should be aimed at achieving specific results. Looking back at Chapter Five you can see that communication is an intentional act, however, the intentions will change as the work progresses. At first, you will be aiming mostly at gaining trust and rapport. This will mean that early information questions will be general and safe. As the work progresses the information needed will be more focused on the details of the problem, and the nature of the questions will change as a result of this.

Information gathering is an important step, but by itself, it does nothing to solve a problem. It is possible to know lots of facts about what is happening for a service user, but still not know how to help them. For this, the facts must be analysed

Step Two – Analysis and Problem Definition

Having gathered the relevant information it is important to make sense of it. This is one reason why it is important to avoid being overwhelmed by information and instead, gather information that is most relevant to your role and to the problems you are trying to solve.

Having gathered information it is important to organise it according to a narrative so that it tells a story that makes sense. Often service users feel swamped by a problem or problems that make no sense. Things ‘just happen’ and they don’t know why. As a result, they don’t know what to do about it. The analysis organises individual events which are unconnected or only loosely connected, and puts them together into a coherent story.

In terms of problem definition, it is possible to return to the Mellor and Schiff Model that was introduced in the previous chapter. In order for a problem to be well-defined it must be something that the service user recognises as a problem (existence); something that is serious enough to put the time and effort into solving (significance); something that can be solved (solvable); and as something that it is the person’s own responsibility to solve (own part). Often a service user will find a barrier at one or more of these stages. A parent who is being abusive towards their child may see nothing wrong with this (existence); someone with a drink problem may accept that they drink more than most but say that it is not a serious problem (significance); someone who is depressed may believe that things can never get better (solvability); someone who is in a violent relationship may believe that the only possible solution is for their partner to change (own part).

Looking at each of these in turn; the abusive parent must be supported to see the harm that their behaviour is causing their child (existence); and that this harm is significant (significance); and that alternative and better parenting strategies exist (solvability); and that they must take responsibility for changing their parenting.

The person whose drinking is seriously impacting on their well-being and on the well-being of others must be helped to recognise the seriousness of these impacts (significance); and that alternative behaviour patterns are possible (solvability); and that they have the capacity to change their drinking pattern (own part).

For someone who is experiencing severe depression they need to be supported to believe that things can change (solvability); and that although they cannot change everything about their situation there are things they can do that will improve the situation (own part).

Finally, for the person in the abusive relationship, they are likely to be helped if they can recognise that they do not have to wait for their partner to change. They have options, from learning assertiveness skills, to leaving the relationship, to pressing for prosecution (solvability/own part). The social worker may not know in advance which of these will be most acceptable or effective for the person, or even if any of a range of other strategies might work better, but unless all four levels are dealt with then no solution is possible.

So it is important that after gathering information the problem is defined in a way that recognises the existence and significance of the problem, states it in a way that makes it solvable, and focuses on the person’s own responsibility to take action to solve it. Perhaps the strongest example of this is bereavement.

The death of a loved one is a tragedy, but not a problem. It cannot be solved. So when working with someone with a profound grief reaction it is important NOT to define the problem as ‘the death of a loved one’, but as something like ‘strong feelings of sadness and guilt following the death of a loved one that are interfering with daily living.’

Step Three – Identification of Strengths and Opportunities

When I do training with social workers I often carry out an exercise where I ask them to think of a service user they have worked with and then write a brief case summary describing the person and their situation. I then ask them to look at the description and break it into three parts: neutral facts, problems/weaknesses, and strengths/resources. What is striking when I do this is that in the vast majority of cases the description is significantly skewed in the direction of problems, deficits, weaknesses, disorders and so on, with few, if any, mentions of positive qualities, potential resources or strengths. The fact is that too often problem-solving focuses too much on the problems and not enough on what the service users are already doing or are capable of doing to help them manage or solve those problems.

For this reason, Thompson suggests that identification of strengths and opportunities needs to be a discrete part of the problem-solving process. One core belief that feeds into this is the idea that ‘there’s nothing wrong with us that can’t be put right by what’s right with us’, and if we don’t explore with service users ‘what is right with them’ we are unlikely to solve problems in the way we would like to, in a way that empowers service users and does not foster dependency.

An important point to mention here is that the idea of preventing ‘dependency’ is highly culturally related. In individualistic, capitalist and competitive societies great emphasis is placed on independence, autonomy, and choice. These are often values that are taken for granted as being ‘good’. Globally, and even locally, there are many cultures and sub-cultures that favour interdependence over independence; that recognise that human beings do not exist as isolated units but in communities of interdependent relationships. As a result of this, the identification of strengths and resources needs to account for this diversity, and seek as far as possible to locate individual strengths and opportunities within the context of networks of individuals and communities that can also provide support in the problem-solving process.

Step Four – Exploration of Possible Solutions

There is an old saying that ‘if you always do what you’ve always done then you’ll always get what you’ve always got.’ This often applies when analysing why people struggle to solve problems, they continue to apply strategies which perhaps used to work in the past but which have stopped being effective, or strategies which they believe ‘ought’ to work, but which in fact don’t. This means that when exploring possible solutions it is important to create new possibilities rather than simply continuing with what has already been shown not to work.

One of the most powerful tools for generating solutions is brainstorming. This technique is very simple, but unfortunately, because it is seen as simple it is often treated as if it was easy. Good brainstorming is not an easy process. It involves stating the problem to be solved and then generating as many possible solutions without evaluating them. This has two key advantages. Firstly, it prevents a common tendency to latch on to the first available solution rather than patiently waiting for the best solution. Secondly, creative problem solving is associative and exponential, meaning that one idea will trigger associations to other ideas, each new idea generating a number of other ideas. This means that even an idea which is unethical or unworkable may lead very quickly to novel, ethical and workable solutions. If the first idea is silenced the later ideas will not emerge.

Having stressed the importance of new and novel solutions social workers should not ignore the benefit of exploring present and past solutions. Often a solution can be a case of doing something that is already working more often or in a slightly modified form, or else re-starting something that the person has stopped doing.

People often find it easier to generate more solutions for someone else than they do for themselves. This can be used in the solution generation process. You can ask someone what they would advise a friend to do if their friend was experiencing this problem. It is possible to ask someone to think of someone they admire, real or imaginary, and ask them what they would think that person would advise them to do in this situation.

You can also engage people’s imagination by inviting them to leap forward in time to a point where they have solved the problem and then ask them what they are doing differently, and, if they manage that, to ask them to think about how they have managed to do those things.

There are many books and courses on creative problem solving, and these are well worth investing in. I have only managed to give a flavour of the options here, but I hope it will trigger ideas in you for how you might be able to help someone generate possible solutions. The key point here is summarised by Gerard Puccio, a professor specialising in creativity, that “the best way to have good ideas is to have lots of ideas.”

Step Five – Evaluation of Possible Solutions

Having said that idea generation is about the number of ideas, quantity, and not the effectiveness of those ideas, quality, at some point in the process you have to move from having “lots of ideas” to selecting the ones that are worth investing in. This requires balancing a number of different factors. These can include:

Efficacy – which solutions seem to be effective in solving the problem? Abandon those solutions which whilst interesting are not likely to be effective in solving the problem.

Achievable – can you carry out this solution? Abandon those solutions that you do not have the resources, whether personal, material or otherwise, to carry out. There is no point working on a solution that you do not have the knowledge, skills or resources to implement, although bear in mind that part of the solution may be gaining the knowledge, skills or resources to implement the solution later on.

Congruence – does the solution fit with your values and your image of yourself? Abandon those solutions which might be effective and achievable, but which do not fit with your sense of who you are, your values, or your beliefs. One person might find a particular solution absolutely fine, for someone else that same solution might be absolutely unacceptable.

Challenge Level – does the solution seem challenging, but achievable? Whilst this seems to contradict the achievable criteria, it does make sense. It may be obvious that some solutions are too difficult, people may also struggle with solutions that seem too easy. If our goal is to develop self-efficacy, the ability to solve problems without our help in the future, then we need to offer solutions that stretch people beyond their current level of ability, whilst still being manageable.

Personal preference – put simply, which one do you fancy having a go at? Solutions that are seen as ‘right’ for the person are more likely to be successful.

Urgency – what needs sorting out first? This is especially helpful when a person faces multiple problems, some of which pose serious and immediate threats. If someone is experiencing mental health problems but is under threat of eviction it is likely to make sense to look for solutions to the threat of eviction before working on recovery from the mental health problems.

Using these questions or a range of other techniques, it is possible to sift through the possible solutions and select one or two that can be developed and implemented.

Step Six – Formulation of a Plan

The next important step is to move from planning to implementation. This begins with taking the proposed solution and turning it into a plan. A plan spells out exactly who, will do what, when and where, and why they will do it. Planning is a good way to ensure that the evaluation of your chosen solution/solutions is realistic and systematic. It also ensures that issues of partnership and empowerment are addressed.

A general rule in the plan is for the service user to be responsible for more than 50% of the planned actions. This may be a graded process, starting with small steps, then building up to the service user continuing on their own, but in most cases, it is better for the social worker not to do things that the service user is capable of doing. This may sound harsh or uncaring, but the reality is that every time a social worker does something that a service user could do there is danger of conveying the message ‘I am doing this for you because I don’t trust you to do this on your own.’

Writing the plan down can be extremely helpful. This is both because the written record acts as a memory aid and also because often things that are written down take on a power and a permanency that is not always there in the spoken word.

However, it is important that plans remain flexible and open to change in the light of experience. I often say of plans: “you need to have a plan because you need to know what you are deviating from.” This highlights the paradoxical nature of good plans: they must be solid enough to make sure you don’t simply drift along, but also be flexible enough that when circumstances change or new information comes in the plan can be adapted to take these into account.

Step Seven – Revisiting the Information and Analysis

Before moving on to implement a plan it is helpful to go back to the original information, including the reasons for the referral. It is important that social workers remember why they are there and what they are trying to achieve. The need of this has been shown more than once in fatal child-abuse enquiries where a plan has been developed that failed to address the primary reason for the referral. Imagine a case where a referrer suspects that a child may be at risk of serious physical abuse. During the initial assessment, the social worker also discovers that the house is unhygienic. There is a serious danger that if the social worker focuses exclusively on improving the standards of hygiene in the house and does not address the risk of serious physical abuse the child could come to harm or even, in extreme cases, die.

In a more routine way, it is important to ensure that the plan is in line with the initial assessment. If it is not then there are two choices: you can either update the assessment in the light of the new information gathered whilst carrying out the initial assessment; or else review the plan to make sure it is congruent with the initial assessment.

At the end of this step, it may be helpful to mentally rehearse the plan with the service user, running through in detail who will do what, when and where. If appropriate it may help to use role-play in order to both build the service-users confidence and also to check for any possible unexpected problems that might emerge as the plan is being implemented. If these arise then the plan can be amended or various backup plans can be created to deal with foreseeable problems that might emerge during the implementation phase.

Step Eight – Implementing the Plan

Ironically, from a social work perspective, the carrying out of a problem-solving plan is often the easiest bit. This is because with problem-solving the social worker is not the one implementing most of the plan. From the service user’s perspective implementation will be much easier if there is either a clear start point, an agreed time and place when the plan will be implemented, or an agreed trigger for the plan, for example, next time the service user notices something specific starting to happen then they will implement the plan. The clearer this is in advance the more likely the plan is to be implemented.

Step Nine – Monitoring and Review

This phase is clearly stated in the Social Work Process that was discussed on that page. It is important to continuously monitor the work to ensure that the plans are appropriate, that they are being implemented and that they are getting the desired results.

In many ways, one of the best methods for monitoring and reviewing plans is to use the model of reflective practice described elsewhere in this site. This means that after the service user has implemented the plans the social worker sits down with them and helps them review what happened, what they did, and what the results were. They then link this to the goals for the work and create an understanding of why it worked or why it didn’t work, and use this to modify the plans and determine how best to implement them in order to achieve the desired end goals.

Step Ten – Concluding Involvement when Appropriate

Successful ending of problem solving begins in the earliest stages. As early as stage one the worker needs to be asking ‘what needs to be different in order for us to know it is time for us to stop working together?’ This stresses that social workers are not permanent features in the lives of most service users, but are a temporary service that will help people get to the point where the person is ready to continue without them.

Concluding begins to rise in prominence as Step Nine develops. An important part of the monitoring and review is to ask ‘have we got to where we wanted to be?’ This is an important point as it avoids ‘mission creep’, this is where as one problem is solved a new, less important problem is raised. Without a good review process, it is possible that social workers will avoid closure by finding new problems to solve, but it is important to remember that the aim of social work is to enable service users to carry on without them.

As the work moves into its final stage the social worker will want to focus on discussing with the service user what they have learned. It can be helpful to learn about Attribution Theory – this is a theory about the way in which people explain the causes of their behaviour and situations. If a service user sees the success in problem solving being primarily caused by the action of the social worker then this is likely to leave them vulnerable to relapse. If on the other hand, the service user sees their success in solving the problem then they are more likely to feel confident that if the problem re-emerges then they can deal with it. By focusing on what the service user has done to solve the problem and what they have learned about how to solve problems the service user becomes more empowered to solve problems in the future. The less credit they give to the social workers for their successes the better the chances of future success.

The reality is that problems and challenges are a natural and on-going fact of life. As Buddhists remind us, to live is to suffer. It can, therefore, be very helpful towards the end of the work to develop a relapse prevention plan. This is a plan that does a number of things.

Relapse Prevention Plans may include:

• Identifying early warning signs that alert the person early that problems might be returning
• Identifying a network of support that can help resolve or manage the problems
• Agreeing what actions they will take as soon as they notice the warning signs
• Specifying when a returning problem will need outside help, including a re-referral
• Stating the signs that the returning problem has been successfully overcome

Finally, in concluding, it is important to celebrate success and find ways to mark, and perhaps in a few cases even mourn, the end of a phase in the service user’s life. In most cases, this will be low key and minimal, but in some cases, it may be more significant.

I have too often seen social workers arrive in the lives of service users, turn those lives upside down with intrusive and threatening questions, conclude that actually there is nothing wrong, and then pull out with no support or back-up for the service user. I find this unethical and unprofessional. If you have to turn a service user’s world upside down, say with a mental health or a child protection investigation, plan your exit strategy so you put back the things you got out and clean up the mess you have created. Anything less than that is at best incomplete problem-solving, and at worst unethical practice.

Critique

Whilst Thompson’s model is very useful, and is certainly going to be more helpful than not having a model at all, it is very limited. The implication in the model is that the ten-steps follow logically and neatly from each other; and that progress with tend to follow a linear path, with a straight line from problem to solution. In reality, things are almost always more complex than this.

Progress tends to be iterative, that is it does not flow from step one, to step two, to step three, as seems to be implied by Thompson’s model, but involves are repeated set of loops, where feedback from one attempt to solve the problem is used to refine the attempted solution, until things are ‘good enough.’

I have proposed an alternative Problem-Solving Model which more accurately reflects the reality of the Problem-Solving process. You can find it here.

Reflection

• What struck you as new or different in this chapter?
• What is the difference between engaging someone in a problem-solving process and advising someone on how to solve their problems?
• How do you ensure that when involved in a problem-solving activity you do not make the person’s situation worse?
• Why do so few social work theory books provide sections on basic problem solving?

Last edited by M. Allenby on 19.8.16