LSCILIFESPACE CRISIS INTERVENTIONNEW DIRECTION FOR CHRONIC SELF-DEFEATING BEHAVIORS.Do you work with children who display chronic patterns of self-defeating behavior? Turn crisis situations into learningopportunities with LifeSpace Crisis Intervention, an advanced, interactive therapeutic strategy.

This powerful series combines a multi-theoretical model integrating Psychodynamic, Cognitive and Pro-Social theoriesinto a dynamic and comprehensive strategy rooted in personal insights, behavioral changes and natural consequences.

The following article is reprinted from Healing Magazine, Volume 3, No. 2 - Fall/Winter ‘98

Life Space Crisis Intervention: new skills for reclaiming students showingpatterns of self-defeating behavior

2 K I D S P E A C E

T RADITIONAL EDUCATIONALand treatment paradigms frameproblems as pathology or

deviance and rely heavily on coercion,punishment and exclusion. However,such approaches often fuel an adversar-ial climate between adults and youth,and preclude the development of posi-tive peer cultures and safe learningenvironments. These reactive strategiesare contrasted with Life Space CrisisIntervention (LSCI), which capitalizeson problems as opportunities for learn-ing and growth. LSCI provides staffwith specific competencies for success-fully managing crises with studentsshowing six common patterns of self-defeating behaviors. The LSCI Instituteprovides certification in these advancedreclaiming skills for youth at risk.

The pattern is familiar. A young personhas increasing conflicts with family,school or community. Adults in his orher life space are unaware of the nature

of the youth’s inner turmoil andbecome frustrated by chronic, escalat-ing troublesome behavior. Punishmentor exclusion only drives these youthfurther from the social bond, andmakes them resistant to traditionalcounseling strategies. Increasingly cut off from supportive mentors and prosocial peers, the young person gravitates to other alienated youthswho share a hatred of adult authorityand institutions. These youths mayretreat in lonely isolation or explode inviolent acts, evoking further rejectionand punishment. They may be seen bymany professionals and agencies, butthey are known by none.

Another crisis is brewing regarding the limitations of our paradigms foreducating and treating at-risk and troubled students. Schools, courts andthe mental health system are beingoverwhelmed by growing populationsof youth who are alienated from adults,

By Nicholas J. Long, Ph.D., Frank A. Fecser, Ph.D., LLPC, and Larry K. Brendtro, Ph.D.

Educators and other youth professionals are searching for more

effective means of dealing with troubled young persons whose

unresolved conflicts can escalate into explosive violence and pose

serious dangers to both staff and youth.

H E A L I N G 3

institutions and values. Whether thissystem failure becomes an impendingcatastrophe or an occasion to developcreative new treatment strategiesdepends on which of two terms isselected to define crisis: “disaster” or“opportunity.”

Crisis as disaster...

Crisis as disaster is based on the beliefthat nothing good or hopeful willresult from the problems humansencounter in negotiating the challengesof life. In this view, the negative forcesof a crisis are allowed to overwhelm theresources and skills of the individuals.This view of crisis applies to education-al and human service agencies as wellas to individuals. In mental health,education and the courts, there hasbeen a preoccupation with devianceand deficit, and a blindness to thestrengths, resilience and malleability ofyouth. With this mindset, interven-tions tilt towards coercion or exclusionin a climate of punitiveness or flaw-fixing.

Crisis in mental health

Public mental health services are con-ceptualized on an illness model inwhich health is characterized as theabsence of psychopathology or mentalillness. These services are struggling.They also have little validity when itcomes to treating our most troubledurban children and youth. There isgrowing evidence these programs haveall the predictable signs of professional

suicide, with clinicians who are over-worked, underpaid and functioning ina reactive mode. Professional judgmentis overruled by mavens of managedcare who ration services and rely ondown-step services and psychoactivechemicals to silence rebellious youth.Interventions consist mainly of briefdiagnostic assessments and short-termsymptom management. The best prac-tices ideal of a continuum of compre-hensive services from consultation tomilieu treatment is a hollow promise.Affordable residential care is a rarity,and the prevailing model is to “stabilizeand discharge.”

The plight of mental health services forchildren and youth goes well beyondthe lack of financial support and over-worked staff. A psychologist at a publicmental health center diagnosed thisproblem when she said, “We have aneffective psychotherapy program,except the schools and courts are refer-ring the wrong cases to us.” Her observations are painfully correct. Thechildren and youth being sent to psychotherapists arrive with multipleproblems of developmental neglect,abuse and rejection. They often live ina hostile environment comprised of

LSCI

Life Space CrisisIntervention

Nicholas J. Long, Ph.D. Frank A. Fecser, Ph.D., LLPC Larry K. Brendtro, Ph.D.

fragmented and overbearing families,alienated schools and the destructivesocial forces of guns, gangs, drugs,promiscuity and poverty. In the majority of these cases, the therapistsare unable to separate intra-psychicproblems from ongoing crises at home,in school and in the community.Consequently, the social-emotionalneeds of these troubled children andyouth often exceed the resources andskills of the therapists. Weekly sched-uled psychotherapy sessions simply arenot enough to be effective, and manyyouth are highly resistant to traditionaloffice-based counseling. In addition,clinicians are acknowledging the limitations of any single theory of psychotherapy. The many needs oftroubled children and youth cannot besqueezed into a behavioral, psychody-namic, cognitive or social learningmodality, except for narrow types of help.

If mental health services for troubledchildren and youth are to survive, programs must reevaluate the illnessmodel of treatment and develop a comprehensive strength-based model.Young people must be seen as resource-ful participants in their own healing,not passive patients who need fixing.Likewise, parents of troubled childrenmust not be labeled as “dysfunctional”when it is the health services systemthat really deserves that tag. Parentsand professionals must forge partner-ships to advocate for effective programsfor the children and youth in their care.

Crisis in the schools

The majority of troubled students arenot being served by effective inclusion,nor are they participating in qualityalternative or therapeutic school pro-grams. Most are languishing, fightingand disrupting the education programsin their schools. The frequency andintensity of their inappropriate behaviors continue to be an alarmingproblem for teachers. For example, the authors have directed school

consultation programs, alternativeschool programs and private residentialfacilities. Recently, we have observedmore primitive and bizarre studentbehavior in the public schools than wehave ever witnessed in our residentialfacilities.

At-risk and troubled students are alsobringing all the social ills of our societyinto the classrooms, causing teachers tofeel overwhelmed and helpless. Whenschools separate these youth into alter-native programs, the programs oftenbecome little more than what Knitzerhas called “curriculums of control.” Insome states, there is no requirementthat schools even offer alternatives forexpelled students who are banished toroam the streets as aliens. The legalprinciple of “zero reject” (all studentsare entitled to an appropriate educa-tion) is being overridden by the political Newspeak of “zero tolerance”(hold kids fully accountable, but allowstaff to give up on difficult youth).

Instead of providing special services,some schools are criminalizing misbe-havior by transforming unfortunateschoolyard conflicts into violations ofthe criminal code – doing whatever ittakes to get rid of a particularly disrup-tive child. What once might have beenseen as a playground fistfight becomesbattery, and threats and profanitybecome assault. Recently in a nearbyschool district, one second grader whocarried a plastic butter knife from thecafeteria and another who poked a peerwith a pencil were both charged withpossession of weapons. It is not thatthese incidents are insignificant.However, we wonder that any responsi-ble educator would think the criminaljustice system can raise kids better than schools. Since such behavior isoften related to emotional disturbance,schools that want to dump their trou-bled kids need to keep these studentsfrom being identified as disabled. Insome states, school-based services forseriously emotionally disturbed students are truncated by consultants

4 K I D S P E A C E

H E A L I N G 5

who show school boards clever tricksfor keeping special education off limitsto conduct problem, oppositional andattention-deficit/hyperactivity disorderchildren. Strikingly, children with thesedisabilities constitute a majority ofyouth who end up incarcerated in thejuvenile justice system (Garfinkel,1998). Thus, many seriously emotional-ly disturbed children are being deprivedof appropriate special services with therationalization that these youth don’thave a “real” disability, but are justchoosing to act in a socially maladjust-ed manner. Of course, all of us choosehow to act, but the key issueis why a youth woulddecide to keep behaving in a self-defeating manner even when that behavior isruining his or her life.

Traditional strategies for discipline fail dramaticallywith a significant portion ofhighly troubled studentswho do not benefit fromeither punishment or exclusion. Students withemotional and behavioraldisorders are the most likelyto be suspended andexpelled, and, ultimately, tobecome dropouts orpushouts from school.These youth fail to graduateat a rate greater than anyother disability group, evenstudents with mental retardation. When behaviorproblems persist in spite ofinterventions, it would seemthat a sensible responsewould be to discard theintervention instead of thestudent.

Crisis in the courts

In a typical year, 3 million children in the United States come into contactwith the juvenile justice system. Thishappens to be the same number whocome to the attention of the child welfare system because of allegations

of neglect or abuse. Research by theChild Welfare League of America (Petitand Books, 1998) shows that these areoften the same kids. Children who firstencounter the child welfare systembecause of neglect or abuse are 67 timesmore likely to be delinquents beforethey are teens.

Whatever sympathy the public has forthe young victim of child abuse quicklydissipates when the victim becomes a

victimizer in the community or a terrorin school. Mary Sykes Wylie, senior editor of “Family Therapy Networker,”puts it this way: “It is as if, in the public mind, a pathetic, battered littlechild enters a black box and emerges

from the other side a strange, terriblecreature... a vicious thug who certainlyhas nothing in common with the poorlittle tyke who went in.” (Wylie, 1998,pp. 34-35.)

As the mental health and educationalsystems wash their hands of troubledchildren, the justice system becomesthe placement of last resort. Experts injuvenile justice are calling for reformsbased on positive youth developmentand restorative justice, which buildscompetence in offenders. However,many politicians prefer to serve out just desserts as they continue to shiftresources away from prevention andtreatment, and towards warehousingresponses. There is not a shred of scien-tific evidence that this punitivenessmakes any sense. The pendulum willswing when leaders realize they arepouring scarce resources into a blackhole. In the final analysis, conservingour youth is a conservative value, butwasting our youth is not.

At a time when we know a great dealabout what works in the preventionand treatment of juvenile crime, theUnited States cannot continue invest-ing hugely in models of proven failure.In the 1970s, criminologist Martinsonreviewed research on treatment ofdelinquents and erroneously concludedthat nothing works. In subsequentresearch, Martinson retracted this posi-tion, but his pronouncement continuesto provide great inspiration to thosewho would discard delinquents. TheUnited States is in the throes of what iscalled the “adultification” of juvenilejustice. Simply stated, we are tiltingstrongly away from the traditional roleof the juvenile court in serving theneeds of delinquent children. Instead,we are dishing out mean-spirited pun-ishments, including placing large num-bers of youths in the adult correctionalsystem to serve prison sentences for ahost of crimes, violent and otherwise.We even have 66 young people who await execution for crimes theycommitted as juveniles, and many

more serving life terms. This humantragedy is unique to America, since allother democracies recognize interna-tional law that prohibits such sentencesfor children. Even with these most serious offenders, there is evidence thatwe have available models that caneffect change, but retribution is replac-ing redemption as the goal of juvenilecourts. As Wylie (1998, p.37) concludes:

It seems horribly appropriate that,having denied children the kind ofcare and protection that all younghuman animals must have, wethen decide to punish them, inessence, for our failure to raisethem in the first place... and all thefancy rationalizations for adultsentencing of children – howeverundeniably awful they and theircrimes are – foreshorten not onlytheir future, but ours. What do wethink these 11- and 14- and 16-year-old jailed felons will do whenthey are released? Become insur-ance brokers? Has there ever been a plan so exquisitely calculated tovisit the sins of the fathers uponthe children – and their children’schildren?

LSCI: an alternative to reactive strategies

Traditional approaches to troubledyouth are inherently pessimistic andreactive, and keyed to the deviance and dysfunction of youth. Youth whoprovoke hostile encounters with othersoften import to school dysfunctionalattitudes and behaviors developed inthe family or on the street. Redl (1957)described these children who hate ascaught up in patterns of distorted private logic and maladaptive copingstrategies. They often feel they are“picked on” or “discriminated against,”even in the face of benevolent authority figures. Unfortunately, the“common sense” disciplinary responseof punishment or exclusion may onlycast adults in the role of enemy, andreinforce the angry or rejected youth’sdistorted thinking and behavior.

6 K I D S P E A C E

H E A L I N G 7

While judicious use of wise punish-ment does not convey rejection or disrespect for youth, a punitive climatedoes, and it is destructive to groupmorale and discipline. When adultstelegraph their negative expectationsand rule by threat and coercion, youthhave two choices. Some rebel and fightback. Others submit to intimidationand become moral hypocrites, obeyingas long as they are under the fear ofpunishment. Punitiveness breeds bullies and hypocrites, and rebellionbecomes a badge of courage (Redl,1957). In this negative climate, students are usually well aware of seri-ous problems of their peers, but a codeof silence precludes bringing theseproblems to light or working collabora-tively with adults in creating a safe living and learning environment.Certainly, school rules and communitylaws require sanctions for seriouslyanti-social behavior. However, one

cannot assume that the punishmentalone will “teach them a lesson.” Ifpunishment is indicated, then the crisissurrounding this punishment may itselfprovide an excellent opportunity forlearning and growth. The authors haveconducted life space crisis interventionswith youth who have engaged in vio-lent crimes leading to severe criminalsanctions. Even these human tragediescan serve some purpose if a youth canbe helped to re-examine and transforma troubled life.

Many troubled youths distrust alladults and engage in patterns of coer-cive interactions and conflict cycles.Instead of using adults for guidance,they oppose or manipulate persons inauthority. They also become very skill-ful at avoiding or resisting counselorswho use the traditional “deficit and disease” model of mental illness. Incontrast, LSCI employs a strength-basedapproach of problem-solving (Table 1).

Table 1

The focus of LSCI is on understandingthe reasons for counterproductive conflict cycles. This entails enlisting the youth in a careful analysis of criseswhich negatively impacted the youth.An analogy would be a coach guidingplayers in reviewing videos of a losinggame to see what went wrong. “Timeline” sequences of various crises aredrawn to establish what factors elicitand maintain dysfunctional behavior.

LSCI in action

From 1993 to 1997, Dr. Nicholas Longserved as a psychological consultant tothe staff of the New York City PublicSchools, District 75, Alternative SchoolProgram. The NYC Public School hasidentified approximately 100,000 at-risk students, and District 75 hasenrolled over 9,000 troubled studentsin their various special education classes located throughout the boroughs of the city. The primary purpose of this consultation was to

explore ways of reducing the frequencyand the intensity of schoolwide studentcrises. (A schoolwide crisis was definedas a conflict that escalated into anexplosive situation.) In such conflicts,reason jumped overboard and chaosbecame the captain of the situation.These conflicts escalated to a level inwhich a student attacked a peer or staff, or a student had to be physicallyrestrained. During the first year, 80such schoolwide crises were selectedand reviewed, resulting in these findings:

1. School crises do not happen byappointment. School crises happenedat the least convenient times for thestaff. These crises most commonly happened during the first 40 minutesof the school day; during transitionalperiods when students were changingclasses; and when the staff did not see the initial precipitating incident, but had to intervene and stop somedangerous behaviors.

8 K I D S P E A C E

H E A L I N G 9

2. During a crisis, teachers rely ontheir personal authority. When schoolstaff found themselves in a confronta-tional situation with a student, theyfrequently relied on the powers of theirauthority to encourage a student tochange his or her behavior and conform to school rules. Unfortunately,these students had little respect forauthority and were not easily intimi-dated. The common use of teacherthreats – such as fear of failure, detention, transfer to another school orexpulsion – had little consequence onthese students. In fact, the use ofauthority and teacher threats as a man-agement technique not only was inef-fective, but also escalated the conflict.These students needed to understandand take responsibility for their behav-ior rather than simply be coerced intosuperficial behavioral compliance.

3. School crises are triggered by aminor incident. Typically, school crises began with minor inappropriatestudent behavior such as not stayingon task, walking around the classroom,teasing peers and arguing over the fair-ness of a behavior modification pointsystem. In most situations, the staff did not start or initiate the conflict, but they often responded in a style thatfueled the conflict and kept it going.They often used words that inflamedthe student's anger, triggered a con-frontation and depreciated self-esteem.During such a student/staff exchange,the staff were quick to speak, slow to listen and reluctant to use positivebehavior management techniques.

4. Staff become caught in the ConflictCycle. The Conflict Cycle is a basic paradigm that explains why normal,healthy, reasonable staff can behave in ways that are significantly differentfrom their personalities. For manyyears, the literature on staff/studentinteractions documented only howstaff behavior impacted on studentbehavior. While this relationship isundeniable, it also is true that duringstressful times, a troubled youth can

shape staff behavior by recreating dysfunctional feelings in the adult. Ifstaff are not trained in understandingthe dynamics of the Conflict Cycle,they will end up mirroring thestudent’s behavior and escalating thestudent’s conflict. This circular interac-tion between a troubled student and astaff member is presented in Figure 1.

The dynamics of the Conflict Cycledemonstrate how a student in a stressful situation can create identicalfeelings in staff. Adults who act ontheir feelings and do what feels naturalinadvertently mirror the student’sbehavior and make the crisis worse.During these incidents, staff are pro-grammed to respond like a thermome-ter, and reflect the same emotionalfever of the student. For example, anaggressive student shouts at a teacherand says, “I’m not going to do it!” The teacher will then become counter-aggressive and impulsively shout back,“Yes, you will!” If this sequence contin-ues, the student will fulfill a prophecyand irrational belief that all adults arehostile and rejecting.

In the case of a depressed student, the student may tearfully say to herteacher, “Please leave me alone! Thereis nothing you can do to change any-thing. Nothing in my life has meaningor is interesting.” The teacher initiallywill feel sorry for the student and try to comfort her. But if this sequencecontinues, the teacher will feel frustrat-ed and, ultimately, helpless. She willsense her counter-depressive feelingswhen she is around this student and,over time, she will say to herself,“Maybe she is right. Maybe it is best if I leave her alone and talk to this otherstudent, Anna, instead. At least Anna is interesting.” In this example, theteacher fulfilled the student’s prophecythat no one could help her and she isunworthy of help. There are no win-ners when the Conflict Cycle escalatesto this level. The Conflict Cycle cannotbe broken by asking a student in stressto shape up and act more maturely. If

10 K I D S P E A C E

student's self-concept

irrational beliefs

stressfulincident

behaviorstudent'sobservable

feelingsstudent'sadult/peer

reactions

The Conflict Cycle

Figure 1

H E A L I N G 11

change is to occur, it must begin withthe staff and not the students.

5. Crises arise from three major causes. An analysis of student crisesrevealed that the crises all followed thesame sequence of behavior, but thatthey developed from three differentsources:

A. Normal developmental issues.Growing up in an urban society isstressful, and even well-adjusted students can become temporarilyupset when their attempts to becomeindependent, win group approval,develop ethical values and seek inti-mate relationships go awry. They canbecome flooded by their feelings ofdisappointment, shame, excitementand sadness, and can profit fromskillful crisis intervention. These students are quick to learn from thissupport, demonstrating that crisisintervention is not restricted to troubled children and youth.

B. Situational forces at school. Thistype of student crisis is more a func-tion of the dynamics of the schooland activities rather than the person-ality of the student. A student canmisinterpret interpersonal comments,can be teased or bullied by the group,frustrated by the assignments, falselyaccused of an act and confused bystaff directions. When these stressorserupt into a crisis, the student willneed abundant adult support andclarity to understand and profit fromthis crisis.

C. Unresolved psychological issues.This type of student crisis involves at-risk and troubled students. It represents the most severe and com-plicated form of conflict. Most often,these students cannot separate the

emotional problems they have expe-rienced at home and in the commu-nity from the current problems theyhave at school. The slightest frustra-tion or disappointment can open old wounds and trigger characteristicpatterns of self-defeating behaviors.Psychologically, the crisis may signalunresolved issues of abandonment,rejection or abuse. These students arethe most difficult to help, represent-ing a major challenge to educators.

In conclusion, our experience with the New York City Public Schools alternative program highlighted thechallenges posed by serious studentconflicts. This is not a criticism of thestaff, but a statement that professionalshave not been prepared adequately to manage this new level of student disruption. When teachers lack tools to manage such situations, crises canbecome disasters.

Crisis as opportunity

In this paradigm, a crisis is perceived as a glass half filled with water ratherthan half empty. This way of thinkingmobilizes the student’s resources andpotential strengths instead of dwellingon deficits, dysfunctions and disorders.A crisis represents a unique time tohelp a student come to grips with animportant life problem, which theyouth often has denied. When success-fully managed, a crisis can illuminatehis or her pattern of self-defeatingbehavior and provide strength-basedsocial skills. Unlike with HumptyDumpty, the paradigm of “Crisis asOpportunity” entails putting all thepieces together again in a stronger andmore resilient way. It is a time for personal growth, accepting responsi-bility and enhancing meaningful relationships.

THE CONFLICT CYCLE

1 An incident occurs (frustration, failure,etc.) that ACTIVATES a troubled student’sirrational beliefs (e.g., “Nothing good everhappens to me,” “Adults are unfair!”),which in turn defines it as a stressful incident.

2 These negative beliefs and thoughtsdetermine and TRIGGER the intensity of the student’s feelings.

3 These intense feelings – not the student’s rational forces – DRIVE his or her inappropriate behaviors.

4 The inappropriate behaviors (yelling,threatening, sarcasm, refusing to speak)INCITE adults.

5 Adults not only pick up the student’s feelings, but also they frequently MIRRORthe student’s behaviors (yell back,threaten, etc.).

6 These negative adult REACTIONS increasethe student’s level of stress, escalating theconflict into a self-defeating crisis.

7 Although the student may lose this battle(i.e., he or she is punished), the studentwins the war! His or her SELF-FULFILLINGPROPHECY (irrational belief about adults)is REINFORCED. Therefore, the student has no motivation to change or alter theirrational beliefs or the inappropriatebehaviors.

LSCI as an advanced strategy of the “Crisis as Opportunity”paradigm

LSCI is an advanced, sophisticated and effective strategy of using a student crisis as an opportunity to promoteinsight and change. It uses the curricu-lum of direct life experiences in the student’s natural habitat with a staffmember whom the student comes totrust. This is a respectful encountercasting the staff member in a role asthe student’s life skills coach and nothis or her prosecutor.

LSCI does not supplant other behav-ioral, educational or therapeutic strategies that have been shown to beeffective. Rather, it begins where otherbehavior management systems end. Itprovides advanced interventionsdesigned for specific students who showcommon patterns of self-defeatingbehavior. We have referred to LSCI asan advanced firefighting and fireproof-ing strategy. During the diagnosticstages of the LSCI process, the staff isnonjudgmental. But unlike classicalpsychotherapy, the intervention is notvalue neutral. Instead, if the student isnot motivated to acknowledge his rolein the crisis and change his inappropri-ate behaviors, further interventions are initiated around clear ethical valuesabout how people live and treat each other in a group setting. LSCI is reality based, clinically powerful andmulti-theoretical. It integrates research-validated psychoeducational manage-ment techniques into the interventionprocess. Finally, LSCI is not a rigid orpredetermined strategy. This methoddemands staff be at their very bestwhen the situation becomes increasing-ly worse. Adults must learn to feel comfortable with their feelings aroundsituations of confusion and uncertainty,and be able to listen to youth without a script, always being sure where thisgenuine communication might take them.

The importance of being with a student who is upset

Children are genetically programmedto reach out to others in times of crisis,but existing management models iso-late them during these critical periods.The popularity of this exclusionaryoption is likely related to its escapistvalue to adults who are uncertain abouthow to handle difficult incidents. Webelieve that it is usually important forstaff to be with a student in a crisis assoon as possible. This is a departurefrom the common management deci-sion of sending an angry student to a“cooling off” room, and speaking withthe student only when he or she isrational. The justification of using a“time out” period is predicated on theconcept that talking with a studentwho is upset only reinforces the stu-dent’s negative behaviors. This isabsolutely true if the staff are unable tocontrol their counter-aggressive feelingsand lack effective de-escalating skills.

From our experience, we know thatthere are many clinical advantages ofbeing with a student at the peak of hisor her anger, depression or regression,particularly if the crisis represents anunresolved psychological issue.Participating in this crisis process is likeobserving the student in a Rorschachtest – except the material is not symbolic, but an actual expression ofhis psychological status. This experi-ence can open a window of opportuni-ty to observe and document the student’s irrational beliefs, aggressiveimpulses, reality testing, level of anxiety, defense mechanisms, feelingsof guilt and shame, and coping skills. It highlights the student’s characteristicway of perceiving, thinking, feeling and behaving, and his pattern of self-defeating behavior. Most important,the student will not be able to denyand cover up what took place betweenthe two of them during the crisis. Wehave found that talking with a student even an hour after the crisismay produce filtered information and

12 K I D S P E A C E

H E A L I N G 13

protective comments designed toobscure the helping process. In addition, there are many benefits thataccrue for the student:

1 Students are valued and treated with respect by significant adultswho see them at their worst.

2 Students learn to trust caring adultsand use them for support in time of crisis without fear of rejection andpunishment.

3 Students become aware of their patterns of self-defeating behavior.

4 Students connect their thinking, feeling, behaving, with reactions of others.

5 Students acquire specific strength-based social skills.

6 Students accept responsibility for inappropriate actions.

A brief history of LSCI

LSCI grew from the creative contribu-tions of Redl and Wineman’s theory ofLife Space Interviewing (LSI) developedfor treatment of delinquent youth inDetroit in the 1950s. Redl andWineman were the first to documentand advocate using an adolescent’s crisis as a core therapeutic componentof treatment. To accomplish this goal,they trained the staff who spent themost time with the youths to use LSIduring a crisis and to become centralprofessional members of the treatmentteam. The interest in LSI grew, becom-ing included as a skill for teachers,child care workers and crisis staff whoworked with emotionally disturbedchildren and youth in residential carefacilities. However, from the late ‘60s to 1980, the technology of behaviormodification and “behavioral engineer-ing” dominated the field. LSI and otherrelationship-based interventionsdeclined in prominence. In 1981, Longand Fagen published a monograph onLSI as a needed skill to help educators

mainstream troubled students intotheir school. LSI experienced a revivalin special education, but still lacked ateacher-friendly textbook. In 1992,Mary Wood and Nicholas Long filledthis gap by publishing “Life SpaceIntervention.” In the same year, Longand Fecser took the next step anddeveloped a certified program in LSCI,creating the professional structure andstandards for future training. This training program also involved makingsome refinements and modifications to LSI theory to facilitate teaching this model:

1 The name was changed from “LifeSpace Interviewing,” which was toorestrictive a term, to “Life Space CrisisIntervention,” which was more inclu-sive of other therapeutic methodsnow incorporated with this psycho-educational model.

2 Redl and Wineman were such talent-ed and charismatic clinicians thatthey gave the impression LSI waseasy to learn, when, in reality, it is ahighly complex and advanced strategy. To counter the growingnumber of interpretations of LSI,Long and Fecser analyzed the processand identified 26 teachable compe-tencies. Professionals enrolled in theLSCI certification program mustdemonstrate both intellectual knowl-edge and behavior skills of each ofthe competencies.

3 A new cognitive map had to be writ-ten to prevent staff from becominglost and confused during the LSCIprocess. While interventions cannotoccur in a scripted manner, adultsneed a logical plan to structure theircommunications.

An LSCI roadmap to keep staff on track

Talking with students in a crisis is notinitially a comfortable process for staff.This experience most often leads toconfusing and chaotic student-staffinteractions, resulting in frustrating andjumbled outcomes. This explains why

many of the popular “crisis trainingprograms” focus on staff safety and de-escalating skills rather than attempt-ing to use the student’s crisis to helphim or her develop personal insightand accountability. For example, in oneof our studies, 100 student crises werewritten up and reported by schoolcounselors, psychologists, social work-ers and special educators. Their reportswere reviewed and compared to the six stages of the LSCI process as shownin Figure 2.

These comparisons yielded the following findings:

• Stage 1. 80 percent of staff were successful in de-escalating the student crisis.

• Stage 2. 72 percent of staff obtained a reasonable sequence of thestudent’s crisis.

• Stage 3. 46 percent of the staff wereable to define the central issue of thestudent’s crisis.

• Stage 4. 15 percent of the staff wereable to use the student’s crisis for anopportunity to teach and for the student to experience some aware-ness of or insight into his or her pattern of self-defeating behavior.

• Stage 5. Only 10 percent of the staffwere able to identify and teach theappropriate social skills the studentneeded to prevent a similar crisisfrom occurring.

• Stage 6. Only six percent of the staff were able to provide effectiveguidance for the student reenteringthe classroom, and to consult withthe classroom teacher to help rein-force any of the student social skillswhen demonstrated.

This data demonstrated that staff wereskilled in de-escalating and obtaining a reasonable time line. But when itcame to using the student’s crisis as anopportunity for insight and account-ability, most staff became bewilderedand were ambivalent about what to do next. The most common choices were to give the student a school consequence or to use a brief, scripted,

14 K I D S P E A C E

H E A L I N G 15

cognitive problem-solving exercise thatseldom had any meaning or value tothe student. These findings sent a clearmessage. If we were going to be success-ful in teaching LSCI to our colleagues,we had to provide them with a cogni-tive map of the LSCI process, pinpoint-ing the student’s role, the staff’s roleand the specific skills needed to complete each of the six sequentialstages. This cognitive map would provide staff with the knowledge ofwhere they were in the LSCI processand what they would have to do next.It would offer them positive directionsand ways to avoid being sidetrackedand derailed by the multiple issues andbehaviors presented by the student.Figure 3 represents a general overviewof the six stages of the LSCI process.The first three stages involve diagnosticskills, and the remaining three stagesrepresent reclaiming skills.

Interventions for specific patterns of self-defeatingbehavior

As seen in Figure 3, the first three stagesof the LSCI process involve the staff in de-escalation and initial diagnosticskills. After de-escalating the student’scrisis (Stage 1) and obtaining his or herstory about the crisis (Stage 2), the staffidentifies the central issue (Stage 3). At this juncture, staff may decide tolimit the intervention to “emotionalfirst aid” and handle the problem byroutine management practices.

However, if this particular crisis shows a characteristic pattern of self-defeating behavior, the decision may bemade to proceed with a more intensiveintervention, which Redl called “clinical exploitation of live events.”This involves helping the student gaininsight into the nature of the problem(Stage 4), teaching the student newskills (Stage 5) and working to ensuregeneralization or transfer of training(Stage 6).

Six types of patterns of self-defeatingbehavior that are common among children and youth are highlightedbelow. Specific interventions have beendeveloped for each of these patterns.

1. Imported problems: The Red FlagIntervention. This pattern involvesstudents who carry in a home/commu-nity problem and displace it on thestaff. This is called a “Carry In RedFlag.” A variation involves studentswhose unresolved psychological prob-lems are ignited by a school discussionor activity about topics such as death,sickness, abuse, rejection, etc. This iscalled a “Tap In Red Flag.” In each case,the student overreacts to a neutral situation such as an adult request orassignment. A Carry in Red Flag Patternoften takes place within the first 40minutes of the school day. The teachermay ask the student to take off a hat,sit down or open a book. This reason-able request is followed by an explosionof hostile insults towards the teacher,subject and school. The student appears

Figure 2

16 K I D S P E A C E

Cognitive Map of the Six Stages of the LSCI Process

Student Crisis Diag

no

stic Stages

Reclaim

ing

Stages

Staff de-escalating skills to drain off the student; intense feelings while controlling one's counter-aggressive reactions

Staff relationship skills to obtain and validate the student's perception of the crisis

Staff diagnostic skills to determine if the crisis represents one of six LSCI patterns of self-defeating behavior

Staff clinical skills to pursue the student's specific pattern of self-defeating behavior for personal insight and accountability

Staff empowering skills to teach the student new social skills to overcome his pattern of self-defeating behavior

Staff consultation and contracting skills to help the student reenter the classroom and to reinforce

and generalize his new social skills

Stage 4

Stage 5

Stage 6

Stage 3

Stage 1

Stage 2

Student Insight

Student New Skills

Student Transfer of Training

Student Time Line

Student Central Issue

Figure 3

H E A L I N G 17

to want to fight with the staff and toescalate the crisis into a no-win powerstruggle. The diagnostic cues for thestaff are the intensity and duration ofthe student’s anger. The staff mustsense the degree of anger is all out ofproportion to the incident. When thishappens, the student’s anger most likely has another source, but isdumped on the staff. This means thestaff receives the anger, but doesn’tdeserve it. This is a classic example of a defense mechanism called “displace-ment.” The Red Flag crisis is a cover-upand a way of avoiding an unresolvedpersonal problem by creating a newproblem in school. This is the mostvolatile of the student crises, becausethe staff is surprised by the student’sreaction, doesn’t deserve this kind oftreatment, and may be provoked intofeelings of righteous rage that can escalate a crisis into a catastrophe.

2. Errors in perception: The RealityRub Intervention. Most behavior thatdoesn’t make sense is understandablewhen the private logic of the youth incrisis is discovered. Often, stressful situations evoke errors or distortions inthinking or perception. This pattern isseen when a student is upset by frustra-tions in school that create heightenedanxiety and distort the perception ofreality. The student sees things, hearsthings and remembers things during acrisis – not as they are, but as they areperceived emotionally. The student hasselective attention, social blindness andtunnel vision. He or she is likely to beselective in memory and to misinter-pret a comment. The diagnostic cuestake place during the Time Line Stageof the LSCI as staff try to understandthe sequence of events by using theConflict Cycle.

3. Delinquent pride: The SymptomEstrangement Intervention. Thisintervention involves students who arepurposely aggressive and exploitivetoward others while justifying theiractions and even casting themselves inthe role of the victim. They refuse to

accept responsibility for their actions,using language such as, “I didn’t startit,” “He dissed me, and deserved what he got” and “I handled it becausethe teachers would not have done anything.” They usually are in controlduring the crisis and have little difficulty describing the sequence ofthe conflict, except to minimize theirrole. The diagnostic cues occur whenthey are asked how they feel abouttheir aggressive behavior. Their typicalanswer: “Fine.” They show little or noguilt about their behavior, and have nomotivation to change. Their mantra is,“It’s not my problem.” Gibbs and colleagues (1998) note that these anti-social youth often show narcissisticthinking, blame others while minimiz-ing their own problems, and assumethe worst about the intentions of oth-ers. They may have some conscience,but it is underdeveloped and easilysilenced by their egoistic thinking.Delinquent behavior is seen as “cool,”and considerable payoff is gained fromthis world view. This pattern is easy toidentify, but difficult to change. Thesestudents are masters at provokingcounter-aggression in adults or causingadults to give up on them. In LSCI,“fight” or “flight” are not staff options.Instead, adults employ skills in caringconfrontation without modeling hostil-ity or disrespect. Only as these youthsbecome uncomfortable with theirbehavior and experience genuine guiltwill they be motivated to change.

4. Impulsivity and guilt: The Massaging Numb ValuesIntervention. This pattern involvesstudents who are impulsive, but feelguilty about their inappropriate actionafter some rule violation resulting fromtheir lack of restraint. Often they areburdened by their feelings of remorse,shame and inadequacy, and may seek out some form of punishment tocleanse their guilt. These students oftenhave a history of being abused, abandoned and deprived. The diagnos-tic cues occur in observing their non-verbal behaviors. Their posture,

face, eyes, arms and legs reflect a stateof anxiety and guilt. Unlike the youthwith symptom estrangement, they donot need to experience more guilt, but to strengthen and activate theirpositive values to prevent impulsivebehavior.

5. Limited social skills: The NewTools Intervention. This patterninvolves students who initially weremotivated to avoid interpersonal close-ness and learning. Now they want torelate to staff, be successful at schooland develop peer friendships. But eventhough they now have the right atti-tude or the correct intentions, they stilllack appropriate social skills. They seekteacher attention by talking withoutpermission. They cheat on tests, andthey try to make friends by teasingtheir peers in depreciating ways. Thediagnostic cues occur when the staffidentifies a youth who has good inten-tions, but inappropriate behaviors. Theintervention involves assessment ofneeded skills and instruction, whichprovides the youth new tools for inter-personal behavior.

6. Vulnerability to peer influence:The Manipulation of BodyBoundaries Intervention. This patterninvolves two diagnostic variations. Thefirst involves a student who usually isemotionally needy and isolated. Thisstudent is vulnerable to influence by anexploitive peer who reaches out to himor her. However, the friendship is main-tained only if the neglected student iswilling to act out the wishes of theexploitive student. This pattern is called“false friendship” because the manipu-lative student used the isolated studentto meet his or her needs. This need forbelonging is also seen in certain young-sters who are vulnerable to gang influ-ence, such as “Yummy,” the youngChicago boy who willingly carried outa murder to gain acceptance, only to bemurdered himself by those whoexploited him. A common diagnosticcue occurs when both students are seen

together in a discussion of some inap-propriate behavior. While the isolatedstudent may exhibit signs of anxiety,the manipulative student appearsdetached and cool.

The second variation involves anaggressive student who is set up by anintelligent passive-aggressive student.The aggressive student is unaware ofhow the passive-aggressive student getshim “out of control.” For example, the instigator may make subtle provo-cations not noticed by staff. Then, theaggressive student may try to hit thepassive-aggressive student, but ends upbeing physically restrained by the staff.The aggressive student gets a punish-ment while the “innocent” instigatorstudent remains in the classroom smiling with renewed confidence.

Integrating LSCI with otherreclaiming methods

LSCI is an effective component inbuilding positive peer cultures inschools and youth organizations.However, since this method is highlyindividualized, organizations oftencombine LSCI with other systemwideinterventions that are grounded in thesame reclaiming values base. A fewexamples follow:

• The Circle of Courage model(Brendtro, Brokenleg and VanBockern, 1990) is founded on creat-ing positive and respectful learningenvironments based on universalneeds for belonging, mastery, independence and generosity.Schools using this strength-basedmodel have documented dramaticreductions in suspension and exclusion (NES, 1996).

• The Resolving Conflict CreativelyProgram (RCCP) of Lantieri and Patti(1996) mobilizes students, staff andfamilies to develop peacemaking values and foster respect for diversity.RCCP is used in hundreds of schoolsnationwide, and has reversed nega-tive peer cultures in the most violent

18 K I D S P E A C E

H E A L I N G 19

school environments. As with LSCI,conflict is seen as an occasion forgrowth rather than for punishment.

• Scandinavian school bully preventionresearch has led to comprehensiveschool interventions (Hoover, 1996).Bullies thrive if codes of silence givepeer intimidation free rein. Thus,these programs transform the “silentmajority” to create positive studentcultures. Research shows that whenstudents work with adults to keepschools safe, major reductions occurin antisocial behavior. It is easiest tobuild positive peer cultures whenanti-social youths are integrated withprosocial peers rather than segregatedin stigmatized groups. However, thisideal is not always possible, since specialized alternative educationaland treatment programs targetingseriously troubled youths are increas-ingly common. Some youths need anintensity of intervention that cannotbe efficiently delivered to the entireschool population. Two psycho-educational models of peer grouptreatment have been effective in

specialized programs serving anti-social youths: the Positive PeerCulture (PPC) model and the EQUIPProgram.

• The Positive Peer Culture model(Vorrath and Brendtro, 1985) wasdeveloped expressly to transformnegative youth cultures into prosocial peer-helping groups. PPChas been shown to create safe envi-ronments in treatment programsserving even highly troubled and violent youth (Gold and Osgood,1992). Because time required for dailygroup meetings conflicts with curric-ular demands for most students, PPChas usually been targeted at specialpopulations, such as students inalternative schools for youths at risk. The National Association of PeerGroup Agencies provides certificationin PPC.

• The EQUIP Program (Gibbs, Potterand Goldstein, 1995) also employsPositive Peer Culture groups, butadds training in thinking errors,

moral development and social skillstraining. Like LSCI, this model usesproblems as opportunities, althoughin peer-helping programs, studentsare trained to become the primaryhelping agents. Research on theEQUIP model documents sustainedpositive outcomes with anti-socialyouth in correctional settings.

Educators and other youth profession-als are increasingly expected to dealwith populations of very difficultyouths, so there is considerable interestin school applications for approachesthat have shown to be powerfulenough to impact seriously troubledstudents. In any setting, unless there isa positive peer culture, young peoplewill be aware of serious problems andimpending violence, but staff will bekept in the dark by a code of silence.

A recent promising extension of LSCI is the Developmental Audit, a compre-hensive assessment and treatment plan-ning strategy for working with extreme-ly challenging youth who have notresponded to other interventions. Suchyoung persons may have exhausted a string of programs and placementsengaging in highly destructive behaviorthat is likely to lead to life-alteringinterventions – being removed fromthe community or incarcerated. TheDevelopmental Audit goes beyond the crisis at hand in a comprehensiveassessment of critical incidents thathave marked a child’s life span develop-mental trajectory. The DevelopmentalAudit is based on a review of availablecase records and extensive interviewswith the youth as well as persons whohave been significant in the life of theyouth at various points in his or herlife. Time lines of recent crises can then be compared with how a youth

20 K I D S P E A C E

H E A L I N G 21

previously acted in similar conflicts.The intent is to track the course of ayouth’s development across family,school and peer ecosystems to identifypatterns of private logic and copingstrategies that have led to patterns ofresilient or self-defeating behavior. Atpresent, all Developmental Audits areconducted by senior trainers from the LSCI Institute. A research projectfunded by a grant from the W. K.Kellogg Foundation and directed bySteve Van Bockern and Larry Brendtrois developing a model for advancedtraining of professionals to conductDevelopmental Audits of delinquency.

LSCI as early intervention

City planners would not consider constructing a new hospital withoutincluding a comprehensive emergencyroom. They would not develop a newcommunity without providing 24-hourfire and police services since theseemergency services are not debatableoptions. The public acknowledges thatmedical, fire and criminal emergencieshappen and are a predictable part oflife. The public also demands theiremergency services will operate effec-tively during a crisis and will protectthem from a more serious and personalsituation. The common denominatoramong these emergency services is theconcept of early intervention or theability to manage any crisis before itescalates into a disaster.

This principle of early intervention incrisis has not been seriously addressedby most schools. General Colin Powellreported in his Alliance for Youth that15 million American youth – one quar-ter of our population under age 18 – areat risk emotionally. Significant numbersof these at-risk students come to schoolon any given day with active and unre-solved personal problems. Many ofthese problems originated at home,with peers or in the community theprevious night or morning. These stu-dents may be so upset and troubled bytheir thoughts that they are unable toconcentrate on their classroom assign-

ments or to profit from educationalinstruction. They desperately need earlyLSCI services. However, what they arelikely to receive is a reprimand from ateacher during disruptive encounterswith peers or teachers. If this con-frontation triggers a Conflict Cycle, itcan lead to mutually threateningbehavior between antagonistic students and adults. Unless this escalat-ing conflict and thinking distortion isinterrupted, the youth may strike out atpersons he or she perceives – correctlyor not – as hostile and rejecting. Justsuch incidents were recently studied bythe Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention. An examina-tion of a hundred serious school crisesshowed that most escalated from minor incidents.

Can many of these crises be preventedor limited? Yes. If the public is seriousabout educating their children, reduc-ing school violence and helping at-riskand troubled students, schools must beequipped with early crisis interventionservices. This is a national problem thatneeds a national response. School crisesare real, and will only get worse if theonly option is to send students to thevice principal for disciplinary action orhave them sit outside the counselor’soffice to cool down. And, even if it isnecessary to suspend a student, it isirresponsible to send the youth away in a state of private bedlam without theopportunity to communicate with asupportive adult. We recommend twostaff from every public school becomecertified in LSCI and be responsible for handling student crises. LSCI offersthe staff effective ways of talking to atroubled student about situations andpersonal problems that could escalateinto a destructive experience. LSCIoffers the next generation of skills thatcan single out an important issue in thestudent’s life for instant, unmuddledand insightful help.

Problems provide unique opportunitiesfor teaching practical lessons about living with others in terms of mutual

respect, trust, honesty and altruism. But students will not buy into thesepositive values unless they genuinelybelieve that adults are also playing bythe same rules: never threaten or hurtanybody; respect others; listen to whatothers say; no blaming, no bullying, no excuse making; take responsibilityfor your own life; and take care of oneanother (Sykes, 1998). While LSCI iscompetency-based, it is more than a set of techniques. At its core is a newmindset about problems as opportuni-ties, and about troubled youth as pos-sessing strength and resilience, whichcan be tapped for their own healing.Such programs cultivate a positive peer culture among students and staff,and mutual respect between adults and youth.

Nicholas J. Long, Ph.D., is the director of the Life Space Crisis Institute at 228Landis Road, Hagerstown, MD 21740.He is professor emeritus at AmericanUniversity, co-editor of “ReclaimingChildren and Youth,” and a licensedclinical psychologist.

Frank A. Fecser, Ph.D., LLPC, is execu-tive director of the Positive EducationProgram (PEP), operating a network ofprograms that serve behaviorally disordered students in the Clevelandschools. His address is 3100 EuclidAvenue, Cleveland, OH 44115.

Larry K. Brendtro, Ph.D., is president ofReclaiming Youth International and amember of the U.S. Coordinating Councilon Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention. His address is P. O. Box 57,Lennox, SD 57039. E-mail:courage@reclaiming.com

BibliographyBrendtro, L., Brokenleg, M., and Van

Bockern, S. (1990). Reclaiming Youth at Risk:

Our Hope for the Future. Bloomington, IN:

National Educational Services.

Brendtro, L., and Van Bockern, S. (1998).

The developmental audit of delinquency. A

project of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation,

Augustana College and the Reclaiming

Youth Institute, Sioux Falls, SD.

Garfinkel, L. (1998). Children with disabili-

ties in the justice system. Reclaiming Children

and Youth, 6(2).

Gibbs, J., Potter, G., and Goldstein, A.

(1995). The EQUIP Program. Champaign, IL:

Research Press.

Gold, M., and Osgood, D. (1992). Personality

and Peer Influence in Juvenile Corrections.

Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Hoover, J. (1996). The school bully-proofing

handbook. Bloomington, IN: National

Educational Services.

Lantieri, L., and Patti, P. (1997). Waging Peace

in our Schools. Boston: Beacon Press.

Long, N., and Brendtro, L. (Eds.) Reclaiming

Children and Youth: Journal of Emotional and

Behavioral Problems. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Long, N., and Fecser, F. (1996). Life Space

Crisis Intervention (Video Series). Austin, TX:

Pro-Ed.

Long, N., and Morse, W. (1996). Conflict in

the Classroom: The Education of At-Risk and

Troubled Students. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

NES (1996). Reclaiming Youth at Risk (Video).

Bloomington, IN: National Educational

Service.

Petit, and Brooks, T. (1988). Abuse and

delinquency: two sides of the same coin.

Reclaiming Children and Youth, 6:(2).

Redl, F., and Wineman, D. (1957). The

aggressive child. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. [A

one-volume compilation of the two books

by the same publisher, Children who hate:

the disorganization and breakdown of behavior

controls (1951), and Controls from within:

Techniques for the treatment of the aggressive

child (1952)].

Vorrath, H., and Brendtro, L. (1985). Positive

peer culture. (second edition). New York:

Aldine de Gruyter.

Wood, M., and Long, N. (1991).

Life space intervention: talking with

children and youth in crisis.

Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Wylie, M. S. (1998, May/June).

Public enemies? Family Therapy

Networker, 22(3), 24-37.

22 K I D S P E A C E

H E A L I N G 23

By Mary Tax Choldin, MA Special Education Teacher and LSCI Senior Trainer

GLENBROOK HIGH SCHOOLDISTRICT 225, a two-school district, is located in Chicago’snorthern suburbs. Residents ofthe upper middle class suburbsof Glenview and Northbrook arehighly educated. They have highexpectations for schools. The student body is approximately4,000, with a faculty and staff of600. These comprehensive highschools offer fine academic programs as well as a wide arrayof athletic and co-curricular pro-grams which include the majorityof students. While 93 percent ofGlenbrook students continue onto college, Glenbrook is not justlooking at academic develop-ment; meeting the needs of eachindividual student and the socialization of adolescents areboth top priorities, also.

The memo on the bulletin boardadvertised a one-week, intensivetraining institute for educatorsinterested in advancing their skills in the area of crisisintervention. Life Space Crisis Intervention training, atechnique founded and taught by Dr. Nicholas J. Long, would beoffered during the summer of1995. A call was placed to thesuperintendent of special educa-tion for approval to attend theInstitute, and the Glenbrook HighSchools were quickly on theirway to incorporating LSCI into apart of their everyday vocabulary.

I returned to Glenbrook with aset of invaluable tools. Usingthese skills in isolation for a year,I recognized the importance ofimplementing this new paradigmin my district. During the nexttwo summers, Dr. Long and Itrained over 50 Glenbrook facul-ty members – including bothspecial education and regulareducation teachers, psycholo-gists, social workers and admin-istrators – in the skills of LifeSpace Crisis Intervention. Wenow share a common language.

One of the most rewardingaspects of having been activelyinvolved in the training of theGlenbrook staff is seeing thenewly acquired skills being used.Several weeks into the schoolyear, as I walked through thehalls, I encountered a colleague

who was engaged in a conversa-tion with a student who wasclearly in crisis. It became obvi-ous to me that the teacher wasusing one of the interventionsshe had just learned. I soughther out later, and she told methat, initially, when she realizedthe student was having trouble,she felt a sense of panic. As shebecame more involved in talkingwith the young man, sherecalled, her ability to interveneeffectively felt natural. After several minutes, she forgot abouther fear and simply let theprocess work for her and the student in crisis.

I asked her how the student feltafter they were done talking. Herresponse indicated that she hadbeen successful in helping him todrain off the feelings that wereoverwhelming him and to establish a time line of what hadhappened that was making himfeel so angry. After telling me theprocess she went through, Ipointed out to her that she hadsuccessfully utilized the skills shehad been trained in, specificallythe Conflict Cycle.

Her response: “It felt like theright way to talk with him.”

Perhaps the most noticeablechange amongst trained adults isa new sense of confidence. LSCIis based on the ability to formrelationships with youth in crisis;Glenbrook is also a relationship-

based school. As a result, thestaff already had many of thebasic foundation skills of LSCI.What they gained through formal training was a process touse, a context in which to usethe skills and a support system.

Throughout the year, I met withgroups of staff who had beentrained and were using the LSCIskills on a daily basis. At onemeeting, as people were sharingtheir experiences, it became clearto me that not only had the LSCItraining benefited the staff, butthe students, as well. As peopleshared experiences with thegroup, a theme emerged: theadults discussed the processitself, but more importantly, theydescribed how the student wasimpacted. Students have begun to recognize the commonlanguage, acquire the prerequi-site skills and accept LSCI as amethod of intervention.

The addition of Life Space CrisisIntervention to Glenbrook hasbeen felt in many positive ways.Trained adults have new tools, arenewed sense of confidence anda common language. Studentsreap these benefits, as well.Although we have always takenpride in our ability to work withstudents and have used relation-ships as a basis for doing so, wecan now better help adolescentsin crisis.

one school district’s experienceLSCI: