Negotiating transitions: a supervision model for home-based family therapists

Current and Preferred Clinical Supervision Experiences of Home-Based Treatment Providers

“…Supervision models for intensive, home-based family therapy have appeared in the literature (Gorman, Lockerman, & Giffels, 1995;Lindblad-Goldberg et al, 1998;Zarski, Sand-Pringle, Greenbank, & Cibik, 1991;Zarski & Zygmond, 1989); however, no studies have investigated what types of supervision are being provided, nor have there been studies that have addressed what types of clinical supervision home-based service providers would prefer. Researchers have surveyed various other sub-specialties of counselors to explore their needs and preferences for clinical supervision, and the type of supervision that they were currently receiving (Borders & Usher, 1992;Coll, 1995;Culbreth, 1999).…”

Common Components of Home-Based Family Therapy Models: The HBFT Partnership in Kansas

“…Families who experience physical barriers often lack transportation, live a considerable distance from a mental health agency, or include a family member who has physical conditions limiting mobility. Visiting the home increases access to and inclusion of family members who might not otherwise attend therapy in the office (Cortes 2004;Cottrell 1994;Schacht et al 1989;Woodford 1999;Zarski et al 1991;Zarski and Zygmond 1989). Psychological and emotional barriers are reflected when a key family member resists attending treatment in the office (Schacht et al 1989;Zarski and Fluharty 1992;Zarski and Zygmond 1989), or when family members fear and distrust social services and assume that attending therapy in an office may jeopardize the family's perceived security (e.g., immigration status).…”

“…Several studies have suggested that a home-based approach has demonstrated reasonable degrees of effectiveness in addressing the following clinical issues: children identified as "seriously emotionally disturbed" or as having a "serious emotional disturbance" (Cherniss and Herzog 1996;Curtis et al 2004;Fuller 2004;Schmidt et al 2006;Sexton and Alexander 2000;Stinchfield 2004;Woodford 1999;Woolston et al 1998;Zarski and Fluharty 1992); children and adolescents exhibiting antisocial behaviors, juvenile delinquents, and those involved with Juvenile Justice Services (Cherniss and Herzog 1996;Curtis et al 2004;Sexton and Alexander 2000;Woodford 1999;Woolston et al 1998;Zarski and Fluharty 1992;Zarski and Zygmond 1989); children with autism (Cottrell 1994); children in need of foster care (Fuller 2004); and families more broadly defined as multiproblem, at-risk, or multi-challenged (Adams and Maynard 2000;Cortes 2004;Johnson et al 2002;Schacht et al1989;Slattery and Knapp 2003;Snyder and McCollum 1999;Zarski and Zygmond 1989). Each of these articles has revealed that families involved in HBFT have experienced greater benefits than those who engaged in traditional, office-based treatment approaches.…”

“…Furthermore, HBFT has been indicated when a member has not improved after a series of hospitalizations (Schacht et al 1989;Zarski and Zygmond 1989), his or her condition is directly associated with family interactional patterns, or changes have not resulted in a sustainable resolution of the presenting problems (Fuller 2004). HBFT treatment also has been indicated when family members have difficulty generalizing learning and experiences from treatment interventions to daily living outside of the treatment setting (Woods 1988).…”

“…Curtis et al (2004) explain that the treatment is focused on the family relations that serve as the context for the child's behavior with an equally important awareness of the home and community that serve as contexts for the family. Treatment situates the family within larger contexts of extended family, community, social services, and faith communities (Brymer and Phillips 2006;Crenshaw 2004;Woolston et al 1998;Zarski and Zygmond 1989). Within the family context, attention is given to the parental and sibling roles and the mutually influencing effects of each.…”