Solution-Focused Strategies

With “Involuntary”Clients:
Practical Applications for the
School and Clinical Setting
Cynthia J. Osborn

Students and clients who do not seek counseling voluntarily often are characterized in a
negative light and receive services that are prescriptive and forced, resembling a rigid phi-
losophy. An alternative and more humanistic approach is that of solution-focused counsel-
ing, which emphasizes therapeutic collaboration.

Consumers of school and mental health counseling often do not seek such ser-
vices voluntarily and may represent the majority of clients seen in public schools,
outpatient mental health settings, drug and alcohol treatment programs, and fam-
ily service agencies (Rooney, 1992). Few resources are available, however, for
assisting helping professionals in their work with such students and clients (Ivanoff,
Blythe, & Tripodi, 1994). Specifically, there is little in the counseling literature
about how to provide services to clients who have been sent to treatment by a
legal mandate or who have otherwise entered counseling involuntarily (Riordan
& Martin, 1993; Slonim-Nevo, 1996).
This article describes the involuntary client and his or her attitudes, feelings, and
experiencesupon entering counseling.Two client case illustrationsare included based
on my clinical experience(names and other identifying information have been changed
to ensure client confidentiality). Solution-focusedcounseling strategies are provided
for working effectively with involuntary clients. The strategies should help school,
mental health, and drug and alcohol counselors engage the involuntary client in a
collaborative counseling process to enhance the possibility of positive change.

WHO ARE INVOLUNTARY CLIENTS?

Case Illustration 1:Stacy

“Stacy” is a high school junior who was recently in a fight with a classmate,
Jessica. Jessica accused Stacy of getting pregnant by Jessica’s boyfriend, Tony.
Stacy allegedly hit Jessica, who sustained a bruised lip.

Cynthia J. Osborn is an assistant professor in the Counseling and Human Development

Services Program of the College of Education at Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to Cynthia J. Osborn, ACHVE De-
partment, College of Education, 310 White Hall, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242
(e-mail:cosborn@kent.edu).

JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT/ MARCH 1999 I VOL. 37 169

 The school principal, in consultation with Stacy’s mother (a single parent working
full time), decided to give Stacy an “out” by allowing her to choose counseling
instead of suspension from school. Stacy and the principal agreed that if Stacy
was able to stay out of trouble and if she followed the school counselor’s recom-
mendations, she would not be suspended.
Stacy says she decided to see the school counselor to “check her out.” Stacy
says she wants to stay in school despite being 3 months pregnant and not having
any friends. She does not want to be suspended and wants to be able to graduate
next school year because she does not want to turn out like her mother, who has
worked minimum-wage and third-shift jobs while trying to rear two children.

Case Illustration 2: Karl

“Karl” is a 28-year-old man who has been referred to an outpatient drug and
alcohol treatment facility by the county municipal court for his second driving
under the influence (DUI) offense in 1 year. He was sentenced to drug and alco-
hol treatment for 2 years in lieu of 180 days in the county jail. Karl is married and
has two young children. He works full time as a carpenter, a job he is proud of
and which he has held for the past 5 years.
Karl says he does not want to go to jail because that would mean he would lose
his job, which is the family’s primary income. He states, however, that he really
cannot attend counseling because he has to be at work by 7 9 0 a.m. every day and
does not get off until 6:OO p.m. He says he has to hitch a ride with a coworker
because his driver’s license has been suspended and the current work site is 45
minutes away.
Karl says he is not an alcoholic and that the local police had it in for him the
night he was arrested because his wife is the former girlfriend of the local sheriff.
He admits that he enjoys going to the bar after work with fellow workers 2 or 3
times a week and that he has “just a couple” beers each time. He says his drinking
has not been a problem, and he is angry about having to be in counseling.

Definitions

Karl would be described as a “mandated” client, and Stacy fits the definition of
a “nonvoluntary” client. According to Rooney ( 1 992), “mandated” clients are
individuals who must work with a practitioner because of a legal mandate or a
court order, and nonvoluntary clients initiate contact with a helping professional
through pressure from agencies, referral sources, family members, or a combina-
tion of the three. Both types of clients, however, would be characterized as “in-
voluntary” according to Ivanoff et al. (1 994), who describe such individuals as
“persons who receive social and psychological services. . . but d o not actively
seek them” (p. 4).
Karl and Stacy are typical of the many involuntary clients seen by school, mental
health, and drug and alcohol counselors. Individuals who arrive at the counselor’s
office under a mandate or an ultimatum are typically embarrassed, angry or even

170 JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT / MARCH 1999 / VOL. 37

hostile, resistant, afraid, shy, suspicious, overconfident, and often silent (Edelwich
& Brodsky, 1992; Riordan & Martin, 1993; Ritchie, 1986). Such behavior is easy
to understand given the circumstances of involuntary clients. It is to the counselor’s
advantage to gather as much information as possible regarding the client’s situa-
tion to determine their attitudes and feelings about the counseling process.

Expected Attitudes a n d Feelings of the Initially Involuntary Client

Involuntary clients and students who have begun counseling are typically expe-
riencing an array of negative thoughts and feelings. Many feel like they are being
unfairly scrutinized or believe that they have been forced unnecessarily to take
part in a restrictive and an abhorrent exercise. Their options have been narrowed
to two: (a) treatment or counseling or (b) a less desirable consequence such as jail
time, school suspension, divorce, loss of child custody or visitation rights, or loss
of employment. Involuntary clients, therefore, may regard counseling as a final
alternative that places them in a very tenuous position because important aspects
of their life will ride on its outcome.
Living under such an ultimatum makes the involuntary client feel helpless and
confined. When clients arrive at the counseling office they may complain that
they have lost mobility and decision-makingpower; restrictions govern these clients’
daily living, and they are resentful when they have to ask others for permission to
engage in common activities, such as traveling out of town on a particular week-
end. In addition, clients may be required to sign a written agreement that they
will complete an assigned task, such as attending an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)
meeting or undergoing a urine drug screen, and provide documentation when
they have done so. Needing to ask permission can make a person feel devalued.
When a person has to account for daily personal activities to an authority figure
they may feel exasperated and angry because of a sense of lost privacy.
Given the restrictions imposed on them, it is easy to understand how involun-
tary clients feel frustrated, aggravated, angry, suspicious, anxious, and defensive.
In addition, clients may complain that they have been unfairly treated by others
or by the system (i.e., the court or social service agencies), which can reinforce
their disregard for anyone in a helping position. Some involuntary clients may
view counseling as a form of punishment and may consequently feel hopeless.

Common Counseling Assumptions an d Approaches

Involuntary clients are commonly viewed by counseling professionals in a nega-

tive light, which may explain to some degree the reluctance of counselors to work
with such clients (Riordan & Martin, 1993). Negative, or at least unflattering,
characterizations of involuntary clients have included such descriptions as hos-
tile, resistant, “in denial,” reluctant, unmotivated, dysfunctional, hard-to-reach,
and multi-problem (Riordan & Martin, 1993; Ritchie, 1986;Tohn & Oshlag, 1996).
Approaches that have been commonly, perhaps unintentionally, adopted by
counselors who work with involuntary clients, often exacerbate the difficult ex-

JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT/ MARCH 1999 IVOL. 37 171

periences of these individuals and could impede their progress. Counselors who
devote an inordinate amount of time (particularly in the early stages of counsel-
ing) to trying to convince involuntary clients that they have a problem for which
they need counseling or treatment are unlikely to receive the client’s cooperation.
Research in the field of addictions indicates that the conventional therapeutic
stance of confrontation and “breaking through the client’s denial” does not have
a positive outcome in counseling (Miller et al., 1995). In some cases, confronta-
tion actually increases client resistance and may lead to premature client termina-
tion or“drop-out” (Miller & Rollnick, 1991;Miller & Sovereign, 1989; Patterson
& Forgatch, 1985).
The power differential inherent in any counseling relationship is heightened in
a counseling relationship between counselors and involuntary clients, particu-
larly legally mandated clients, whose future may be determined by a counselor’s
recommendations (Slonim-Nevo, 1996). Counselors may inadvertently use their
innate hierarchical power to scold or discipline clients for past or current behav-
ior that has been labeled as problematic, and may prescribe the client with prede-
termined solutions for such problems. For example, telling Karl that he should
not be drinking and driving, that he is an alcoholic, and that he needs to start
attending AA on a regular basis sounds like a lecture and will, more than likely,
fall upon deaf and irritated ears.
Little is known about counseling methods for involuntary clients (Slonim-Nevo,
1996). Professional counselors, particularly those in the addictions field, often
adopt a uniform mentality (Berg & Miller, 1992) of presuming that all involun-
tary clients are alike and therefore must be treated in the same way. Counselors
who use this therapeutic stance fail to consider the client as a person, and are
using a less-than-humanistic approach to counseling (Miller et al., 1995; Miller
& Sovereign, 1989).
Humanistic counseling approaches regard the client as the primary focus in the
therapeutic encounter, and the counselor as a helper, consultant, or companion
(Bugental & Sterling, 1995). The counseling process is shaped by the client who
has identified their needs and perceptions in collaboration with the counselor. In
humanistic counseling, interventions are not imposed by the counselor, and coun-
seling is not based on techniques designed to get the client to do something (Corey,
1996).

SOLUTION-FOCUSED COUNSELING A POSITIVE ALTERNATIVE

Solution-focused counseling represents a humanistic approach and offers coun-

selors an alternative reference point and alternative interventions for working
with involuntary clients. Based on the assumption that positive change is possible
by eliciting and amplifying the nonproblematic behavior of the client, the key to
solution-focused counseling’s utility with involuntary clients is cooperation (Berg
& Miller, 1992; Tohn & Oshlag, 1996). This means, in part, that counselors in-
tentionally engage clients throughout counseling by remaining confident in and
cultivating the client’s ability to access their strengths and resources to fulfill

172 JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC EDUCATIONAND DEVELOPMENT/ MARCH 1999 / VOL. 37

counseling objectives. In so doing, counseling becomes individualized or tai-
lored to the student or client, which demonstrates its humanistic emphasis.

Solution-Focused Principles

The following eight principles are basic to the solution-focused counseling ap-
proach and are a compilation of existing solution-focused assumptions (Berg &
Miller, 1992; Metcalf, 1995; Selekman, 1993; Walter & Peller, 1992).These prin-
ciples have been selected and fashioned with involuntary clients in mind.

1. Students and clients have the strengths and resources they need to change.
They should have confidence in their abilities! This represents the non-patho-
logical or salutary orientation of solution-focused counseling. “Rather than
looking for what is wrong and how to fix it,” Berg and Miller (1992) have
stated, “we [solution-focused counselors] tend to look for what is right and
how to use it” (p. 3).
2. Every complaint pattern contains an exception; there is a time when the
problem is or has not been a problem. Find the exception and amplify it with
commendations!According to the solution-focused model, solutionsare constructed
based on exceptions to the problem. Solutions have been defined as “those things
in the client’s life which, to the client, represent satisfactory functioning” (Molnar
& de Shazer, 1987, p. 353) or “occasional irregularit[ies] in the otherwise regular
occurrence of a complaint” (Miller, 1992, p. 2). The counselor’s task, therefore,
is to inquire about and detect “exceptional” times-past, current, or future-and
to encourage the implementation of non-problem behaviors.
3. Fitting into the student or client’s worldview lessens resistance and encour-
ages cooperation. Get on the same page! A major tenet of solution-focused coun-
seling is to “begin where the client is.” With difficult adolescents, in particular,
Selekman (1993) recommended the “Curious Columbo” approach, referring to
the television detective character who assumes a self-deprecating and unassum-
ing manner as a means of “winning over the enemy.” By soliciting the client’s
view on a given matter (e.g., “What makes you think that?”) without judgment,
the counselor sets the stage for a cooperative endeavor.
4.Problems are unsuccessful attempts to resolve difficulties. Been there, done
that, so-do something different! Involuntary clients are all too familiar with
difficulties and hassles. Problematic behavior, the “ticket” into counseling, may
represent unsuccessful efforts at coping with what has become unmanageable.
Recommending “more of the same” (e.g., “don’t drink and drive” or “listen to
what your mother says”) is often fruitless and heightens the client’s sense of
being stuck. The solution-focused alternative is best understood by the three te-
nets of its philosophy (Berg & Miller, 1992; Selekman, 1993; Walter & Peller,
1992): (a) If it is not broken, do not fix it! (b) Once you know what works, do
more of it! and (c) If it does not work, do not do it again! Do something different!
5. Clients and students are the experts on their complaints, as well as on what
solutions will work for them. Listen and learn! A distinctive feature of solution-

JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC EDUCATIONAND DEVELOPMENTI MARCH 1999 / VOL. 37 173

focused counseling is the belief that clients “already know what to do to solve the
complaints they bring to therapy; they just do not know rhat they know” (de
Shazer et al., 1986, p. 220). The counselor’s task is to be instructed by the client
and to facilitate the client’s construction of a solution that will fit his or her unique
circumstances (Lipchik, 1990). The counselor assumes the role of student and
the client is viewed as the teacher or expert on his or her concerns and what will
constitute a solution.
6. There are many ways to look at a situation, none more correct or right than
the others. Explore options; do not aim at the bull’s-eye! Solution-focused coun-
seling represents an alternative and humanistic model for working with involun-
tary clients by providing an array of interventions, objectives, and goals to fit the
needs of the client. This frees both the client and the counselor to explore op-
tions-to avoid thinking that there may be only one way of resolving difficulties.
7. We do not need to know a great deal about the problem to construct a
solution. The starting point does not necessarily determine the destination! A
thorough understanding of the client’s presenting problem is unnecessary to
effect change. Solutions can often be constructed outside of or apart from the
cyclical problem pattern, without their having any relationship to the original
problem (de Shazer, 1988, 1991). Using an analogy, de Shazer (1994) ex-
plained this principle:

Complaints are . . . like subway tokens. That is, they get the person through the gate but
that does not determine which train he or she will take, nor does it determine which stop
he or she will use to get off. Where the person wants to go is not predetermined by where
[he or she] start[s] out. (p. 113)

8. A small change in one area is contagious. Tip the domino! Known as the
ripple or snowball effect, this principle advocates encouraging positive change in
one area of the client’s life, rather than trying to effect change in all areas. Even
seemingly small changes can make a difference (e.g., the client returning for a
second consecutive counseling session) and often lead to more and accelerated
progress.

The Solution Stance

The principles and strategies suggested in this article are not intended to provide the
perfect solution to working with involuntary clients. None exists! Rather, I provide an
alternative to the common view of counseling with involuntary clients. This view,
which I have devised, is illustrated in the following list of counseling postures:

1. Listen, do not label

2. Investigate, do not interrogate
3. Level, do not lecture
4. Cooperate, do not convince
5. Clarify, do not confront
6. Solicit solutions, do not prescribe them

174 JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT/ MARCH 1999 / VOL. 37

 7. Consult, do not cure
8. Commend, do not condemn
9. Explore, do not explain
10. Be directive, not dictatorial

Strategies for carrying out this stance are described in the following section.

SPECIFIC SOLUTION-FOCUSED STRATEGIES

The following strategies are behavioral interventions that can be used with invol-
untary clients. They are intended to help the counselor enlist and cultivate the
cooperation of not only the client, but the client’s referral source and a collateral
(i.e., family member or friend), so that the counseling process attends to all par-
ties concerned and workable goals are identified.

Solicit Client’s Story

When asked at the beginning of the first counseling session, “So, what brings you
here today?” Stacy might reply, “the principal,” and Karl, “the judge.” The pre-
dictability of these responses does not mean that such an opening question should
be discarded. Rather, the response identifies the source of the client’s motivation
and helps to clarify the client’s understanding of the issue at hand. The question,
therefore, opens the door to a frank discussion of the client’s view about the
complaint, which “lays the foundation for everything that follows” (Duncan, Hubble,
& Miller, 1997, p. 56).
Involuntary clients, like voluntary clients, are entitled to their say in the coun-
seling process. Encouraging the client to describe the current situation demon-
strates the counselor’s appreciation for the client’s perspective. The counselor
might say, “I’ve already talked with (or will be talking to) your probationary
officer (or principal, mother, the judge, etc.) and so have heard her or his side of
the story. Right now, though, I’m more interested in you and your view on things
and how you think they got to this point.” This invitation relays to the client that
he or she is a necessary contributor to the counseling equation, and that his or her
view is important and will be considered, not discredited.
Duncan et al. ( 1 997) recommended that the counselor focus on the details of
the presenting issue by pursuing the client’s version of how the need for counsel-
ing came about: “Although the ‘what’ is important, ‘how’ the problem constitutes
a problem is more so . . . the ‘how’keeps therapy relevant to the client’s concerns
and promotes therapist dependence on client participation” (p. 56).

Acknowledge Aggravation and Commiserate With Circumstance

Acknowledging and not diminishing the client’s feelings about having to be in

counseling signals the counselor’s appreciation for the client as an individual and
represents a frank and genuine approach that is welcomed by many involuntary

JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT/ MARCH 1999 / VOL. 37 175

clients. This approach legitimizes the client’s concerns, highlights the importance
of the client’s struggles, and demonstrates the counselor’s belief in the client and
in his or her abilities to resolve the presenting complaint (Duncan et al., 1997).

Analyze Alternative Solutions and Clarify Consequences

After the client’s circumstances and the motivation for initiating counseling have
been clarified the client should explore alternative solutions to the problem and
to counseling. In Stacy’s case, this would mean inquiring about options to fight-
ing as well as the alternatives she has to counseling. A goal of counseling may
then become how not to get suspended from school by meeting specific behav-
ioral objectives, such as attending all counseling sessions. Rooney (1992) recom-
mended the use of incentives in this process to increase or strengthen a particular
behavior.
This strategy is similar to a cosubenefit analysis, which entails collaboratively
identifying the advantages and disadvantages of a behavior and uses what Miller
and Rollnick (1991) referred to as a “Decisional Balance Sheet.” From the hu-
manistic perspective of solution-focused counseling, such an exercise includes
the client in the counseling process by soliciting the client’s opinion about past,
current, or projected behavior. The counselor does not tell the client what to do;
rather, as a result of collaborative inquiry and analysis, the client arrives at a
decision or at least a starting point from which he or she can assume ownership
of the problem.

Commend Client’s Choice

Involuntary clients and students who enter counseling at someone else’s mandate
have, in fact, made the choice to be in counseling. The choice may have been
made to avoid jail or suspension from school, but the selection has been made by
the client nonetheless. Explaining this serves to reinforce the client’s power to
choose despite the client’s initial belief that such power has been lost. “I’m glad
you’re here” and “I’m glad you made the choice to check this place out (or to
give this a try)” are examples of commendation or “complimenting,” which is
recommended in solution-focused counseling (Metcalf, 1995; Selekman, 1993).
Positive acknowledgment reinforces the decision-making power that clients have
and rewards their risk-taking behavior (i.e., initiating counseling).

Indicate the Ingredients and Intent of Counseling

Defining the parameters or terms of the counseling process increases the prob-
ability that the client will participate. Role induction as defined by Stark and
Kane (1985) entails informing the involuntary client of procedural tasks, such as
maintaining contact with the referral source, type and amount of information
shared with the referral source (i.e., matters of confidentiality), attendance poli-
cies, and projected interventions (e.g., contact with a collateral, referral to a phy-

176 JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC EDUCATIONAND DEVELOPMENTI MARCH 1999 / VOL. 37

sician, or participation in a psychoeducational group). This may also include a
description of the intent of counseling such as, “I am not here to tell you what to
do. I am here to work with you to help you do what is needed so that you do not
have to come here anymore.”
Role induction should be conducted early in the counseling process and in a
collaborative, direct, and forthright manner, so that clients are aware of the pa-
rameters of the relationship. In this manner, clients learn that the process is not
passive and that they are active participants in counseling.
Rooney (1992) recommended that counselors of involuntary clients use a writ-
ten contract, which he defined as “a consensual agreement and acceptance of
reciprocal obligations and responsibilities to perform certain tasks, and deliver
goods within a time-limited period” (p. 59). A contract may consist of several
behavioral requirements (e.g., client must arrive to each session sober, and coun-
selor must report the client’s attendance to his or her probation officer), and an
outline of the consequences that will result if these requirements are not met.
Contracting encourages client-counselor cooperation and is a concrete reminder
of the client’s active role in counseling.

Encourage Engagement

Minimal client participation in counseling sessions (i.e., quiet or nonverbal be-

havior) can often be attributed to the client’s fear or anxiety about what he or she
thinks may happen. The client may be angry about needing to be in counseling,
uncertain about what is going to happen in the session, or indifferent about the
value of counseling. By clearly outlining the parameters and expectations of coun-
seling the counselor may elicit the client’s participation. When the client senses
that his or her views matter, they are more likely to actively participate in the
counseling process. This humanistic approach to counseling differs from the more
common approach of telling the involuntary client what is going to happen, with-
out first considering their attitudes or feelings.
Soliciting the client’s goal(s) for counseling is an essential aspect of solution-
focused counseling and creates the possibility that the client will become an in-
volved customer rather than a passive recipient of counseling. What the client
wants and needs are the most important pieces of information in the counseling
process (Duncan et a]., 1997). Client responses of “I don’t know,” can be met
with “Give it your best shot” or “Guess” by the counselor. Another example might
be, “What needs to happen in this session today for it not to have been a complete
waste of your time?” This limits goal formation to a workable task that can be
accomplished in the here-and-now.

Contact Referral and Recruit Recommendations and Observations

Tohn and Oshlag (1996) stated that the referral source is an integral part of the
counseling process. They recommended the involvement of the referral source
by explaining that involuntary clients often follow the directions given by their

JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC EDUCATIONAND DEVELOPMENT/ MARCH 1999 / VOL. 37 177

counselor but no one other than their counselor notices their progress. By main-
taining regular contact with the referring person, therefore, the counselor en-
hances the cooperation of the client, engages the referral source in the expecta-
tion and process of client improvement, and helps to clarify the client’s goals.
To this end, Tohn and Oshlag (1996) recommended a list of questions for the
counselor to ask the referral source. The list includes questions such as, “What
does the client need to do differently for you to know that counseling has been
successful?” and “What will be some of the small signs to you that the client is
trying to change?” Solution-focused questions such as these challenge the referral
source to identify exceptions to the alleged problem rather than encourage prob-
lematic talk. In addition, the identification of specific, and realistic nonproblematic
behaviors (e.g., “Stacy will attend all her classes and arrive at school on time each
morning”) provides the client with clear and achievable goals.

Contact Collateral

A collateral plays an important role in the process of counseling involuntary cli-

ent. The collateral is a significant other of the client who can verify or substanti-
ate information provided to the counselor by the client (e.g., amount and fre-
quency of the client’s drinking). He or she can also inform the counselor of the
client’s progress. The counselor can encourage the collateral-a family member
or friend who knows the client well and has been selected or approved by the
client for the counselor to contact directly and periodically-to be aware of signs
of positive change. Posing a question to Stacy’s mother such as, “What will Stacy
be doing that will convince you that her coming in to see me has been helpful?”
presupposes that Stacy will benefit from counseling and challenges her mother to
assume the same perspective. The collateral’s answers to such questions should
be shared with the client because it assists in goal negotiation and formation.

Generate Workable Goals

Involuntary clients deserve to have the terms of successful counseling explained

to them. This is a task that is done in a collaborative fashion. Clarifying goals
with clients, breaking the goals down into small, doable pieces, and discussing
whose goals they are is an important part of the counseling process (Tohn &
Oshlag, 1996).
From a solution-focused approach, defining the destination of counseling be-
gins with eliciting and elucidating exceptions. Exceptions are the basic ingredi-
ents of solutions and provide the yeast for solution formation (Miller, 1992).
Focusing on exceptions also fuels the client’s confidence in the possibility of
change and of continued success after counseling.
Characteristics of well-constructed therapeutic goals have been proposed in
the solution-focused literature (Berg & Miller, 1992; Walter & Peller, 1992).
These include goals that are (a) acceptable to the client, (b) clear, specific,
and concrete, (c) small and simple, (d) realistic, attainable, and within the

I 78 JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENTI MARCH 1999 I VOL. 37

client’s control, (e) perceived as attainable only through hard work, ( f ) stated
in behavioral terms and therefore, measurable, and (g) described as the pres-
ence, not the absence, of something.

Identify Client’s (Behavioral) Contributions t o Goals

After specific and concrete goals have been identified and agreed upon by the
client and counselor, it is imperative to clarify the client’s role in the achievement
of these goals. The client’s responsibility and ownership of the solution must be
reinforced if the client’s lofty wishes are to become attainable goals.
Karl’s initial goal may have been to get the judge off his back. Unless Karl and
the counselor specify what Karl will do to make this possible, such as attending
all of his counseling sessions, attending at least three AA meetings in 2 weeks,
abstaining from or cutting down on his alcohol consumption, and paying out-
standing court fines, the goal will not likely be realized.

Offer Options and Render Recommendations, Not Prescriptions

Counselors working with involuntary clients may often be tempted to tell their
clients what to do. From a solution-focused and humanistic perspective, yielding
to this temptation prevents the client from being able to take credit for progress
made and diminishes counseling to one-way dictation.
Miller and Rollnick (1991) acknowledged that “people sometimes fail to change
because they do not receive sufficient feedback about their current situation” (p.
26). Clients deserve to be informed about such things as the legal, health, and
familial risks of their alcohol abuse (Slonim-Nevo, 1996), as well possible ob-
structions to proposed goals (e.g., Stacy’s pregnancy may prevent her from gradu-
ating next year). Such information, however, should be offered to, not imposed
on, clients. Recommendations should be given to clients only when they request
them and in a manner that allows them to judge how the recommendations fit
their situation, and as options rather than the only way to do something (Miller &
Rollnick, 1991).

Close With Clarifications

From a solution-focused approach, it is recommended that each counseling session

should close with a recapitulation of the interaction. This is best conducted in a col-
laborative fashion. An example might be ‘‘What is one thing that you got out of our
talking in this session today that was somewhat useful?” Such questions presuppose
some benefit to the session and encourage the client to identify and acknowledge
such. Following up with the question, “What did you do in this session to make this
(stated benefit) possible?” places the focus on the client’s participation in counseling
and the client’s contribution to the process of change and progress.
Reviewing counseling procedures, decisions made in the session, and tasks to
be accomplished helps ensure that the client and counselor agree on the goals of

JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENTI MARCH 1999 / VOL. 37 179

the process. Providing the client with a copy of a signed and dated counseling
contract further clarifies the goals and objectives of counseling.

SUMMARY

Most of the involuntary clients seen by counselors d o not fit the YAVIS pro-
totype: young, attractive, verbal (and voluntary!), intelligent or insightful,
and successful. Working effectively with involuntary clients requires a shift
in focus and deliberate reframing of the usual counseling approach (Riordan
& Martin, 1993; Tohn & Oshlag, 1996). Resistance may signify reluctance
(Ritchie, 1986), and often represents disagreement between the counselor and
client on the goals of counseling (Miller & Rollnick, 1991). Difficult clients are
simply people with problems more complex than those of clients usually encoun-
tered by counselors and who have an interactive style different from what might
be preferred (Kottler, 1992).
Common ways of thinking have emphasized a uniform, unilateral, and pre-
scriptive method for counseling involuntary clients, which is less than humanis-
tic. This article has proposed, from the humanistic tradition, an alternative ap-
proach to counseling involuntary clients through which clients are granted the
space to tell their story and the opportunity to be heard as individuals. Such an
approach is founded on the presumption that counseling is a collaborative effort,
and, from a solution-focused perspective, provides an excellent framework for
working with involuntary clients (Tohn & Oshlag, 1996). The eight principles
and twelve strategies described herein are intended to cultivate therapeutic coop-
eration toward the goal of positive client change.

REFERENCES
Berg, I. K.. & Miller, S. D . (1992). Working with the problem drinker: A solution-focused ap-
proach. New York: Norton.
Bugental, J . F. T., & Sterling, M. M. (1995). Existential-humanistic psychotherapy: New perspec-
tives. In A. S. Gurman & S. B. Messer (Eds.), Essential psychotherapies: Theory and practice
(pp. 226260). New York: Guilford.
Corey, G . (1996). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy (5th ed.). Pacific Grove,
CA: BrooksKole.
de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy. New York: Norton.
de Shazer, S. (1991). Putting ditference to work. New York: Norton.
de Shazer, S. ( 1 994). Words were originally magic. New York: Norton.
de Shazer, S., Berg, 1. K., Lipchik, E., Nunnally, E., Molnar, A,, Gingerich, W., & Weiner-Davis. M.
(1 986). Brief therapy: Focused solution development. Family Process, 25, 207-22 I .
Duncan, B. L., Hubble, M. A., & Miller, S. D. (1997). Psychotherapy with "impossible" cases: The
eficient treatment of therapy veterans. New York: Norton.
Edelwich, J., & Brodsky, A. (1992). Group counseling for the resistant client: A practical guide to
group process. New York: Lexington Books.
Ivanoff, A., Blythe, B. J., & Tripodi, T. (1994). Involuntary clients in social work practice: A
research-based approach. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Kottler, J. A. (1992). Compassionate therapy: Working with dificult clients. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

180 JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC EDUCATIONAND DEVELOPMENT/ MARCH 1999 / VOL. 37

Lipchik, E. (1990). Brief solution-focused psychotherapy. In J. K.Zeig & W. M. Munion (Eds.), What
is psychotherapy? Contemporary perspectives (pp. 282-287). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Metcalf. L. ( 1 995). Counseling toward solutions: A practical solution-focused program for work-
ing with students. teachers, and parents. West Nyack, NY: The Center for Applied Research in
Education.
Miller, S. D. (1992). The symptoms of solution. Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies, / I , 1-1 I .
Miller, W. R., Brown, J. M., Simpson, T. L., Handmaker, N. S., Bien, T. H., Luckie, L. F., Mont-
gomery, H. A., Hester, R. K., & Tonigan, J. S. (1995). What works? A methodological analysis
of the alcohol treatment outcome literature. In R. K. Hester & W. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook
of alcoholism treatment approaches: Effctive alternatives (2nd ed., pp. 12-44). Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (1 991). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change ad-
dictive behavior. New York: Guilford Press.
Miller, W. R., & Sovereign, R. G.(1989). The check-up: A model for early intervention in addic-
tive behaviors. In R. Loberg, W. R. Miller, P. E. Nathan, & G.A. Marlatt (Eds.), Addictive
behaviors: Prevention and early intervention (pp. 21 9-231). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Molnar, A,, & de S h a m , S. (1987). Solution-focused therapy: Toward the identification of thera-
peutic tasks. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13, 349-358.
Patterson, G.R., & Forgatch, M. S. (1985). Therapist behavior as a determinant for client noncom-
pliance: A paradox for the behavior modifier. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
53, 846-851.
Riordan, R. J., & Martin, M. H. (1993). Mental health counseling and the mandated client. Journal
of Mental Health Counseling, 15, 373-383.
Ritchie, M. H. ( 1986). Counseling the involuntary client. Journal of Counseling and Development,
64,516-518.
Rooney, R. H. (1992). Strategies for work with involuntary clients. New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press.
Selekman, M. D. (1993). Pathways to change: Brief therapy solutions with dificult adolescents.
New York: Guilford Press.
Slonim-Nevo, V. (1996). Clinical practice: Treating the non-voluntary client. Inrernational Social
Work, 39, 117-129.
Stark, M. J., & Kane, B. J. (1985). General and specific psychotherapy role induction with sub-
stance-abusing clients. The International Journal of the Addictions, 20, 1135-1 141.
Tohn, S. L., & Oshlag, J. A. (1996). Solution-focused therapy with mandated clients: Cooperating
with the uncooperative. In S. D. Miller, M. A. Hubble, & B. L. Duncan (Eds.), Handbook of
solution-focused brief therapy (pp. 152- 183). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Walter, J. L., & Peller, J. E. (1992). Becoming solution-focused in brief therapy. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.

You are seeking joy and peace in far-ofplaces. But the spring of joy is in
your heart. The haven of peace is in yoursev
S a t h y a Sai Baba

JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC EDUCATIONAND DEVELOPMENT/MARCH 1999 I VOL. 37 181