University of San Francisco
  Previous   font
 

Conclusion

The literature reveals a growing interest in SBFC that cuts across disciplines: School Counseling, School Psychology, Family Therapy, School Social Work, and Special Education. School practitioners in each of these fields have written about the importance of a family systems theoretical viewpoint in working with children with school difficulties. This represents an important paradigm shift in the conceptualization of counseling school children.

This review of the literature suggests that there are six main types of SBFC service delivery program currently being used: 1) School-sited: In-service Training, 2) School-sited: Family Therapy Staff, 3) School-sited: University-School Collaborative, 4) School-sited: Agency-School Collaborative, 5) Community-sited: Agency, and 6) Community-sited: Private Practice. Table 2 lists the six SBFC service delivery program types and compares each one: site of counseling, accountability of SBFC personnel, personnel providing the SBFC, administrative and clinical control of the program, advantages and disadvantages, and a sample of representative programs.

While numerous case studies attest to the efficacy of a SBFC approach, considerable more outcome research is needed, particularly research into different approaches to SBFC. The literature also reveals important ethical issues around the level of training needed to do SBFC. There is a need for SBFC academic programs that are integrated, that is, programs that are not just a splicing together of Family Therapy and School Counseling/School Psychology/School Social Work/Special Education programs, but have a genuinely ecosystemic view of the family-school system (as well as the child’s peer and community subsystems).

Although the final word on the effectiveness of SBFC is not in, many principals (who are central in importance in hiring school personnel) are casting their vote by hiring School-Based Family Counselors in preference to more traditionally trained mental health school personnel. This suggests that SBFC represents a paradigm shift that is more than a fad.

Table 2 | Six Types of School-Based Family Counseling Service Delivery Programs
Program Type Site Counseling Main Accountability of SBFC Personnel Personnel Providing SBFC Administrative Control of Program
School-sited: In-service Training School School

School Counselor School Psychologist
School Social Worker

School
School-sited: Family Therapy Staff School School Family Therapist School
School-sited: University-School Collaborative School School Family Therapy Graduate Students School/University
School-sited: Agency-School Collaborative School School Family Therapist School/Agency
Community-sited: Agency Community Agency Agency Family Therapist Agency
Community-sited: Private Practice Community: Private Office Family Therapist in Private Practice Family Therapist Family Therapist

Note: The term “School-Based” in “School-Based Family Counseling” refers to the critical importance of the role of the school rather than the school site specifically.
Program Type Clinical Control of Program Advantages Disadvantages Examples
School-sited: In-service Training School Low cost
Utilizes existing personnel

Extensive in-service training required

Nicoll (1992)

Merril, Clark, Varvil, Sickle & McCall (1991)

School-sited: Family Therapy Staff School Utilizes experienced Family Therapists Requires hiring of new personnel Kramer (1977)
School-sited: University-School Collaborative University Cost effective for Schools and Parents Inexperience of graduate students

Albaum (1990)

Friesen (1976)

Hillis, Gerrard, Soriano, Girault, Carter & Hong (1991)

School-sited: Agency-School Collaborative Agency Cost effective for Schools Parents pay fee

Barksdale (1979)

Blatt & Starr (1977)

Community-sited: Agency Agency Utilizes community resources Parents pay fee
Reluctance of families to participate
McGuire & Lyons (1985)
Community-sited: Private Practice Family Therapist Utilizes community resources Parents pay fee
Reluctance of families to participate

Freund & Cardwell (1977)

Wetchlet (1986)

 
 
  About USF | Academics | Prospective Students | Admission | Current Students | Alumni Contact Us | SOE Home