The FOCUS Family Resilience Program: An

Innovative Family Intervention for Trauma and Loss

WILLIAM R. SALTZMAN*,†

This article describes the core principles and components of the FOCUS Program, a brief
intervention for families contending with single or multiple trauma or loss events. It has
been administered nationally to thousands of military family members since 2008 and has
been implemented in a wide range of civilian community, medical, clinical, and school set-
tings. Developed by a team from the UCLA and Harvard Medical Schools, the FOCUS Pro-
gram provides a structured approach for joining with traditional and nontraditional
families, crafting shared goals, and then working with parents, children, and the entire
family to build communication, make meaning out of traumatic experiences, and practice
specific skills that support family resilience. Through a narrative sharing process, each
family member tells his or her story and constructs a timeline that graphically captures the
experience and provides a platform for family discussions on points of convergence and
divergence. This narrative sharing process is first done with the parents and then the chil-
dren and then the family as a whole. The aim is to build perspective-taking skills and
mutual understanding, to reduce distortions and misattributions, and to bridge estrange-
ment between family members. Previous studies have confirmed that families participating
in this brief program report reductions in distress and symptomatic behaviors for both par-
ents and children and increases in child pro-social behaviors and family resilient pro-
cesses.

Keywords: Family Resilience; Family Therapy; Trauma; Loss; Narrative; Medical

Trauma

Fam Proc 55:647–659, 2016

INTRODUCTION

C onverging developments in public policy and research are influencing standards of

clinical and community-based practice to include family-centered, strength-based pre-
ventive services. A growing literature confirms the effectiveness of manualized family-cen-
tered preventive interventions for a wide spectrum of stressful, traumatic, and loss
experiences (Rozensky, Celano, & Kaslow, 2013; Lucksted, McFarlane, Downing, Dixon,
& Adams, 2012; Weisz & Kazdin, 2010; NRCIOM, 2009a). This includes parental depres-
sion (Beardslee, Wright, Gladstone, & Forbes, 2007), bereavement (Sandler et al., 2003),
substance use (Lochman & Steenhoven, 2002), parent and child medical illness
(Rotheram-Borus, Lee, Lin & Lester, 2004), natural disasters (Gewirtz, Forgatch, & Wiel-
ing, 2008), parental divorce (Wolchik et al., 2002), and military deployment and associated
parental physical and psychological injury (Lester et al., 2016; Cozza, 2015; Institute of

*UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Los Angeles, CA.
†
Advanced Studies in Education & Counseling, California State University, Long Beach, CA.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to William R. Saltzman, PhD, 2179 Kin-
neloa Canyon Rd., Pasadena, CA 91107. E-mail: wsaltzman@sbcglobal.net.

647
Family Process, Vol. 55, No. 4, 2016 © 2016 Family Process Institute
doi: 10.1111/famp.12250
648 / FAMILY PROCESS

Medicine, 2014). Furthermore, there is growing interest in how to implement and dissemi-
nate effective evidence-based strategies widely in order to have a population-level impact
(Beardslee, Klosinski, Saltzman, Lester, 2013; Biglan, Flay, Embry, & Sandler, 2012;
NRCIOM, 2009b).
This article describes the FOCUS Family Resilience Program, a family-centered,
strength-based program that is designed to flexibly address the needs of diverse pop-
ulations contending with a wide range of trauma or loss experiences. This program
was initially developed by a team from the UCLA and Harvard medical schools for
military families experiencing difficulties related to the stresses of multiple wartime
deployments and parents returning with psychological or physical injuries (Saltzman
et al., 2009). It has also been widely implemented in civilian community mental
health, medical, and school settings. Findings from large-scale longitudinal studies
indicate that this brief program is effective in reducing parental posttraumatic stress,
anxiety, and depression along with child behavioral and emotional difficulties, while
improving overall family functioning and child pro-social behaviors, and that these
improvements sustain and even increase after cessation of the intervention (Lester
et al., 2012; Lester et al. 2016; Saltzman, Lester, Milburn, Woodward, & Stein,
2016).
Of great interest, secondary analyses employing structural equation modeling show
that the improvements in parent and child adaptive functioning are mediated by improve-
ments in specific aspects of family resilient functioning (Lester et al., 2013; Saltzman
et al., 2016). Causal mapping of this relationship supports key assumptions of family resi-
lience theory: that family resilient processes contribute to the adaptation of family mem-
bers and that these interactive characteristics are amenable to change (Patterson, 2002;
Walsh, 2016). Further, family-level interventions designed to enhance resilient processes
may be useful tools for promoting sustainable positive adaptation in the wake of trauma
and loss events (Saltzman et al., 2011; Walsh, 2007).

Program Development and Implementation

The FOCUS Family Resilience Program drew upon three evidence-based family-
and trauma-focused interventions that had been evaluated through randomized control
designs in various contexts (Beardslee, Wright, Gladstone & Forbes, 2007; Layne
et al., 2008; Rotheram-Borus, Lee, Lin & Lester, 2004). The resulting program was
piloted with active-duty military families and then standardized for broader implemen-
tation (Saltzman et al., 2009). Through a national dissemination sponsored by the
U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery and the U.S. Department of Defense
Office of Community and Family Policy, hundreds of thousands of service members
and their families have received FOCUS services over the past 7 years (Lester et al.,
2016; Beardslee, Klosinski & Saltzman 2013).
Concurrently, FOCUS has also been implemented across multiple civilian settings
including county-wide departments of mental health, school districts, numerous commu-
nity mental health clinics, and at selected service sites within the SAMHSA National
Child Traumatic Stress Network (Saltzman, Bartoletti, Lester, & Beardslee, 2014). The
range of families served include culturally and racially diverse, single- and dual-parent
and foster adoptive families, immigrant families, and families dealing with community
violence, serious and chronic illness, domestic violence and child removal/reunification,
parental substance abuse and mental illness, and death of a family member (Saltzman,
Pynoos, Lester, Layne, & Beardslee, 2013). Most recently, program adaptation for serious
and chronic illness is being piloted at a comprehensive cancer center, with a randomized
controlled study of program effectiveness.

www.FamilyProcess.org
SALTZMAN / 649
Given the geographic dispersal and difficulty accessing mental health services for
many military and high-need civilian families, a telehealth version of the program
has also been developed so that families may engage in these services at home
(Beardslee et al., 2013). Additional web- and smart phone-based applications have
been developed to further support this distance delivery approach to family resilience
enhancement (UCLA NFRC, 2013).

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The FOCUS Program is designed to offer “selected” preventive services to families
exposed to significant levels of stress or loss who may be at risk for psychological distur-
bance or impaired adaptation and “indicated” preventive services to families who may
already present with significant psychological or behavioral impairment. The program is
administered by masters- and doctoral-level, FOCUS-trained clinicians (called Resiliency
Trainers (RT) in some settings). It is designed to reduce the likelihood of problematic out-
comes for families and members who are “at risk” due to stress, trauma, or loss and to sup-
port the recovery of symptomatic family members by mobilizing supportive and resilience-
enhancing processes within the family. For significant psychological disturbance, referrals
for more intensive forms of treatment are provided that may be enlisted concurrently with
FOCUS participation.
The intervention program, combining and adapting methods from strength-based fam-
ily systems approaches (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2013; Lebow & Uliaszek, 2010), is
organized around five core elements and associated activities that are based on principles
of family resilience (Walsh, 2006, 2016). These are described as follows.

Eliciting Family Systemic Goals

The FOCUS clinician is skilled at eliciting and distilling the family core concerns and
making sure the family members feel heard. During the initial sessions, family members
are helped to move from a simple fault and blame understanding of the presenting issues
to a systemic formulation which provides specific and concrete examples of how all family
members have a part in the current cycle or problematic pattern. More important in this
framing, each family member also has a part to play in the family’s healing or return to
better functioning. A brief set of psychological health and family assessments are admin-
istered that can be quickly scored and used to provide guided feedback to the provider
and family. The assessment data and summarized family interview information are used
to craft initial goals for the program that will customize the ensuing intervention.

Providing Family Psycho-Education and Developmental Guidance

Family resilience theory has emphasized the importance of normalizing and contextual-
izing distress reactions common in situations of trauma and loss (Walsh, 2003). This
approach brings a developmental lens to this effort to understand expectable emotional
and behavioral reactions for children of specific ages. This enables parents to normalize
and distinguish transient and expectable reactions from more worrisome presentations
that may require professional attention. Family members may also be aided by pragmati-
cally detailed information about the interpersonal and familial impact of psychological or
medical conditions, and related treatment. This can help frame medication or symptom-
based reactions such as irritability, disengagement, and cognitive impairment as shared
challenges and reduce blame or guilt. In all cases, information and guidance are woven
into conversation with family members, specific to their presentation and needs, thereby
facilitating action.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 55, December, 2016

650 / FAMILY PROCESS

Developing Shared Family Narratives Using Innovative Timeline Technique

Trauma and loss experiences are inherently complex with many separate moments in
which family members will have different types and degrees of exposure to upsetting
events and come away with different interpretations and possible misunderstandings of
others’ intentions and actions. This frequently leads to breakdowns in family communica-
tion, shared meaning-making, cohesion, and support: essential building blocks for a resili-
ent collective response (Walsh, 2006). The FOCUS Program provides a structured
opportunity for each family member to tell and share his or her story, facilitated by an
innovative timeline technique. Expanding the use of timelines in individual developmen-
tal research (Masten & Narayan, 2012) and in family therapy (McGoldrick, Gerson, &
Petry, 2008), this technique graphically captures each member’s experience and provides
a platform for family discussions.
This narrative sharing process is first done with the parents and then the children and
then the family as a whole; moving from individual “silo-ed” stories to a shared under-
standing of what they have been through together. The simple process of sharing and
bearing witness to each other’s narrative in a safe and structured way initiates a process
whereby family members are able to gather essential context, clarify distortions and
misattributions, bridge estrangements, and begin to rebuild or strengthen communica-
tion, cohesion, and support. The program provides scaffolding for these encounters and
helps move the family down the long road of making sense and shared meaning of the
events.

Supporting Open and Effective Communication

A hallmark of a resilient family is direct, clear, consistent, and honest communication
and the capacity to tolerate open expression of emotion (Walsh, 2003, 2006). These charac-
teristics are especially important for families experiencing stress and change, given that
unclear, distorted, or vague communication can rob family members of the essential tools
for successfully adapting to these challenges. Moreover, when parents withhold or “put a
happy face” on communications about serious or difficult issues children often fill in the
blanks with their worst imaginings (Greene, Anderson, Hetherington, Forgatch, &
DeGarmo, 2003). It is important to work within the personal and cultural framework of
each family and help them to find appropriate ways to invite sharing of a wide range of
feelings and respect differences.

Enhancing Selected Family Resilience Skills

Specific parent skill sets and family-level coping strategies can help families antici-
pate and mitigate the impact of stressful events and situational triggers and improve
child adjustment (Saltzman et al., 2009; Spoth, Kavanagh, & Dishion, 2002). Random-
ized controlled trials of resilience-enhancing child and family interventions have iden-
tified specific skills as effective in improving individual and family-level outcomes over
time (Beardslee et al., 2007; Layne et al., 2008). We model and facilitate core transac-
tional skills in stress management and emotion regulation, collaborative goal setting
and problem solving, and managing trauma and loss reminders, fitting each family’s
unique strengths and areas of needed growth. For example, by practicing in sessions
and at home, family members build skills to collectively manage stress by identifying
and anticipating stressful situations, monitoring idiosyncratic expressions of distress
among different family members, and providing support in a timely and developmen-
tally appropriate manner. As needed, session time may focus on helping parents work
together, productively negotiate decisions and disagreements, and balance the family

www.FamilyProcess.org
SALTZMAN / 651
organizational needs for flexibility and the maintenance of consistent structure and
care routines (Walsh, 2016).

OVERVIEW OF SESSIONS
The intervention is generally delivered over eight sessions: the first two with the par-
ents, the second two with the children, a fifth session with the parents to prepare for the
family sessions, and then a series of three family sessions. The program is flexible so that
the number of meetings may vary to fit the needs, capacities, and availability of family
members. The program has been used with a wide range of family constellations and the
clinician may flexibly determine which parent(s) or caregiver should participate and
whether to include extended family members.
During the initial parent session, parents fill out the family resilience assessment pack-
age that includes brief measures of parent depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress and
family resilient functioning, and a measure of child adaptive functioning, and are helped
to describe their current concerns, challenges, and wishes for their family. When possible,
the measures are administered on laptops and automatically scored rendering user-
friendly summaries. The clinician incorporates the assessment feedback and the parents’
input to frame initial goals for the family’s participation in the program.
After goals are collaboratively developed with the parents, the clinician maps out the
range of family needs and objectives with the understanding that the FOCUS Program
can address some but not all of the issues. A sequenced plan is discussed that draws upon
the resources and evidence-based practices offered within the host organization and com-
munity. Parents may be advised to participate first in FOCUS or to avail themselves of
other more urgently needed services (e.g., services for substance use, depression manage-
ment, domestic violence, abuse or neglect, or even forms of legal advocacy). Thus, FOCUS
offers a brief and flexible family module that is designed to mobilize family strengths and
enhance key family capacities and may be used synergistically with other evidence-based
programs such as Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavior Therapy (TFCBT) or Parent–Child
Interaction Therapy (PCIT). In fact, FOCUS is used in this way as an initial engagement
and planning module for many community mental health organizations and providers.
From the very beginning and throughout the program, psycho-education on child devel-
opment issues and the family impact of trauma and loss experiences is woven into discus-
sions. Based on the family goals, skill training and home practice are also employed to
help the family make incremental progress in desired directions.
During the second parent session, the clinician usually begins the process of eliciting
parent narratives and graphically rendering the narrative timeline on a large piece of
paper, usually taped to a wall, that both parents can view. (A simplified version of a parent
timeline based on a case example is shown in Figure 1.) Prior to constructing their narra-
tives, parents are instructed on using the “feeling thermometer” (on the vertical axis of
the timeline) as a means to describe their own levels of distress. It provides a means to cal-
ibrate higher and lower points on the personal timeline with more highly stressful or less
stressful experiences.
One parent or partner at a time is directed to share his or her narrative while the other
bears witness. The listening partner is advised to not make comments during the sharing
even if he or she has a very different recollection or understanding of what “really” hap-
pened. It is assumed each will have very different views even of the same events. The lis-
tening spouse is reassured that he or she will have a turn and that this is an opportunity
to see things “through your partner’s eyes.”
In addition to drawing the timeline, the clinician also writes down any key words or
phrases from the narrative that denote strong feelings or attributions about self or others

Fam. Proc., Vol. 55, December, 2016

652 / FAMILY PROCESS

Parental Timeline

Death of Delayed
Buddy Homecoming Children
Having
Painful Parent
Problems
Goodbye
Move Arguments

Mother
Father

Home Deploy 1 Home Deploy 2 Past Month

FIGURE 1. Timeline drawn to represent narratives of the parents in the example.

that may reflect distorted or potentially problematic perceptions or beliefs (e.g., “I was so
stupid, I should have known . . .,” “It was my fault,” “You never trusted me. . .,” “My life
ended then”). These will be revisited when both timelines have been drawn and the clini-
cian summarizes the similarities and differences of each and facilitates a discussion on
key points of divergence. These junctures frequently represent points at which communi-
cation or support lessened or the spouses became distant or estranged. During the subse-
quent discussion, distortions and misattributions can be corrected and previously rigid
positions softened by better understanding the partner’s experience.
The set of child sessions orient children to the program, collect assessment data, elicit
current concerns and wishes, begin developmentally appropriate psycho-education, and
elicit personal narratives. The initial meeting is often with all children; then individual
sessions elicit their narratives. Depending on children’s ages, they may do a similar time-
line as the parents or, for younger children, a “time map” structured like a game-board
with spaces for the child to draw or describe important events and experiences. Once
again, key phrases or words denoting important or problematic assumptions, interpreta-
tions or beliefs are written down on the timeline. Children are also helped to identify con-
cerns or questions they would like to bring up at the family session.
Next, one or two parent preparation meetings are held to review key portions of the chil-
dren’s timelines and questions so that the family sessions go well and that the parents are
able to play an effective leadership role. Parents are helped to respond to even volatile and
sensitive issues in an open and productive manner while sharing appropriate portions of
their backstory. They practice skills to listen and respond empathically to the children’s
narratives and questions.

www.FamilyProcess.org
SALTZMAN / 653
The first family session is devoted to sharing family members’ narratives and
addressing their differences in experiences and interpretations. This session usually
has the children sharing their timelines or time maps, with the parents filling in rel-
evant context. The clinician guides conversations to address past interpretations and
misunderstandings that are often related to current conflicts. The intention is to
move from individual narratives to a shared narrative that incorporates the unique
experiences of each family member and supplies contextual information that helps
family members better understand and make sense of the events they have been
through. Subsequent family sessions focus on applying selected resilience skills to
specific family issues and problems, anticipating upcoming individual and family
challenges, and developing shared family strategies for maintaining good communica-
tion and support.

CASE EXAMPLE: THE PEARSONS

The following are excerpts from a composite case seen by FOCUS clinicians.
Brandon (32) and Andrea (29) and their son Ethan (9) were seen for FOCUS services. Brandon is
a career Marine and has been deployed twice with minimal time in-between. Three years ago they
moved from North Carolina to California. Since returning from his last deployment Brandon and
Andrea have experienced increased conflict and Ethan has had behavior problems at school and
home. Prompted by her distress and concerns, Andrea sought out family services.
During the initial parent sessions, the clinician engaged with the parents and began
the collaborative process of learning about their concerns, problems, and wishes, as well
as their strengths and past successes, and then translating these into a set of shared goals
appropriate for this brief family program. Three parent sessions were needed to elicit sep-
arate narratives from each and discussing the points of convergence and divergence on
their overlapping timelines as well as experiences that evoked strong reactions from either
spouse (Figure 2).
The first point of divergence was during their move West prior to the first deployment.
Brandon was surprised at her stress elevation for the relocation as he thought this was a
positive career move and opportunity for the entire family. Andrea explained how she
tried to be positive and supportive of him but she found it very difficult to leave behind her
friends and family, and experienced a sense of isolation in their new home on base. In the
ensuing discussion, she was helped to describe her difficulties with the transition and her
previously unexpressed anger because she did not feel she had input into the decision to
move. After first arguing the point, Brandon was helped to acknowledge her feelings and
recognize that “we were living in two different worlds on that one.”
The next point of the timeline at which the clinician had noted emotionally charged
comments from Brandon involved his leaving for his first deployment. He experienced a
“painful goodbye” when his son Ethan refused to look at him or speak with him. Brandon
shared that he thought Ethan was very angry at him for leaving and breaking his promise
to go camping that summer. Even during Skype calls, he felt that Ethan continued to be
resentful. This was new information for Andrea and she expressed sympathy, insisting,
however, that she did not think Ethan felt that way.
The next important point on the timeline involved Brandon’s witnessing of the death of
a friend who was a member of his unit. Brandon was guided to not share graphic details of
the death but to focus on the impact of the event on him. He spoke about his shock, fear,
and anger at the time and then the long-term sadness and second-guessing that seemed to
haunt him, wondering if he could have done anything to prevent the death. Andrea said
that she knew of his loss, but this was the first she fully appreciated how he still thought

Fam. Proc., Vol. 55, December, 2016

654 / FAMILY PROCESS

FIGURE 2. Representation of Time Map and associated drawings by the son in the example.

about what happened and wondered if this contributed to his current episodes of low mood
and tendency to isolate himself.
This discussion affected their processing of the next point of timeline divergence, when
Brandon delayed his homecoming without informing the family. Andrea and Ethan had
expected him on a specific date and arranged a homecoming party. They were very disap-
pointed to learn at the last moment that he had decided, without checking in, to voluntar-
ily extend his deployment. Andrea was furious at the time and wondered if he did not
want to come home. In the ensuing discussion, Brandon tried to explain how torn he was
at that juncture, both wanting to come home and yet not wanting to leave his unit, as most
of them had extended their stay to complete their assignment. In light of the death of their
buddy, this made more sense to Andrea than previously. Brandon conceded that he should
have checked in with her on the decision.
Brandon and Andrea then discussed their experiences during the second deployment,
when they both felt distant. Andrea noted that Brandon’s calls home became short and
business-like and that both she and Ethan felt he came across as if he did not miss them.
Brandon described how his worry about the family peaked during this period, prompted in
large part by feeling helpless to do anything about ongoing problems with Ethan and with
their finances. He said that his response was to “go on emotional lockdown.” While not
resolving the issues, both experienced greater mutual understanding.
In light of Brandon’s wartime experiences and repeated references to his irritability,
mood changes, and sleep difficulties, the clinician explored the couple’s understanding of
PTSD and whether they thought that this was part of the current picture. Both said that
they had thought about it. Brandon had taken a screening after his last deployment,
which had been negative. The clinician provided normalizing information on common

www.FamilyProcess.org
SALTZMAN / 655
stresses and reactions with relocations, deployments, and war-related trauma and loss,
contextualizing each member’s distress and the impact on family relationships. The clini-
cian provided some materials on PTSD and they agreed to return to the topic in later ses-
sions.
The final portion of the timeline review addressed experiences during the past month.
Brandon and Andrea focused on recent blowups regarding their different approaches to
responding to Brian’s challenging behavior at home and reports of his difficulties at
school. As one of their shared goals was to better coordinate their parenting, time was allo-
cated to developing a plan with specific joint actions, to be tried as an “experiment” during
the next week. A second goal was to increase family closeness. Toward that end, they
decided to plan for two sit-down family dinners with the TV off during the upcoming week.
In conclusion, the clinician commented on specific family strengths shown in their narra-
tives and praised their dedication to each other and their family.
Misunderstandings and omissions of personal information are frequently at the heart
of conflicts and enduring family estrangements. In processing these differences, parents
are able, at least briefly, to step away from their own entrenched views and gain an appre-
ciation of the partner’s experience and the context for behaviors that may have been
misunderstood and judged harshly. While differences of opinion and negative judgments
may persist, this perspective-taking exercise usually softens positions and enables greater
collaboration. At the end of the parental narrative sharing and processing, it is often possi-
ble to refine or recast the goals for their relationship and the family.
The first child session with Ethan focused on a playful activity using a large color-coded
feeling thermometer (bottom quarter colored green, for fun or relaxing experiences, next
quarter yellow, for experiences that were a little stressful or uncomfortable, next quarter
orange, for more stressful experiences, and the top quarter red, for very stressful or highly
distressing experiences) with prompts to describe recent experiences within each color
zone. The clinician then wrote them on the poster next to the appropriate part of the ther-
mometer. Referencing Ethan’s “orange and red,” moderately to very stressful experiences,
she then guided a conversation on ways that he would like things to be better or different.
This led to some personal goals from Ethan’s point of view. The clinician also helped to
normalize and provide context to his “orange and red” experiences that centered on sad-
ness over his father having to go away and his moodiness when he returned. Some basic
information on the challenges presented to Marine families was discussed and similar dif-
ficulties heard from other Marine children. Toward the end of the session, she engaged
Ethan in play activities that began training in skills for emotion awareness, communica-
tion, and regulation.
The second child session was devoted to constructing a narrative time map with Ethan
(Figure 2). Ethan selected the events or experiences to put into his time map while the
clinician asked questions to further draw out the details of his thoughts and feelings sur-
rounding the events. During the conversation, Ethan was invited to draw pictures of his
experiences. Key experiences from his point of view included having a sad goodbye with
his Dad (orange on the feeling thermometer), feeling alone at his new school during the
first deployment (orange), going to Disneyland on his birthday when Dad returned
(green), playing basketball and making new friends during the second deployment (green),
and hearing his parents argue loudly at night when he was in bed (red). The clinician sum-
marized his experiences, noting the range of green, orange, and red events and high-
lighted the strengths that Ethan had displayed in dealing with some very difficult
situations. She noted that Ethan seemed to have questions about whether his Dad would
be going away again, and about whether his parents’ arguing was about him. She asked if
he would be willing to share his time map and drawings in the upcoming family session
and ask his questions. He agreed, requesting the clinician’s help in asking his questions.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 55, December, 2016

656 / FAMILY PROCESS

During the family prep session, the clinician shared key points from Ethan’s narrative
and his specific questions. The parents were surprised to hear the extent to which Ethan
was aware of their arguing and very worried that he would think he was to blame. The
clinician shared that self-blame is not unusual in children this age, and they discussed
how best to receive his narrative and respond to his specific questions.
The first family session focused on Ethan sharing his time map and drawings. Bran-
don and Andrea shared appropriate portions of their experiences to help flesh out a
broader family perspective of the challenging events they had all been through together.
They spoke about the difficult goodbye. Brandon shared his relief that Ethan was not
mad at him and provided a heartfelt description of how difficult it is for him to go away
and sometimes disappoint Ethan and his Mom. He then spoke about the time he did not
come back when expected and how badly he felt about that. He and Andrea talked about
things they would begin doing to make sure there were not similar misunderstandings
again. With regard to their arguing, Brandon and Andrea acknowledged their tensions
and wanted to hear and understand more about what it has been like for Ethan and if he
had any more concerns or questions. They spoke honestly, in a developmentally appro-
priate way, about their difficulties and what they were doing now to work better
together. Finally, they led a discussion on family goals and how they would all like
things to be different and better. They agreed that it would be good to spend more fun
time together and collaboratively developed plans for things they could do during the
coming weeks.
The next family sessions were devoted to further exercises that provided practice in
selected family-level skills including how to have family meetings at home, how to problem
solve as a team, how to notice and help each other when a family member was feeling wor-
ried, stressed, or sad, how to plan consistent care routines (e.g., meals and bed time) and
opportunities to have fun together; and also, how to identify and plan for specific trigger
situations or reminders that elicited stress reactions among family members.
The final family session involved recounting the family’s progress over the course of the
program, offering detailed praise for their accomplishments while outlining the work that
remained, and insuring that explicit strategies were in place for contending with antici-
pated challenges and setbacks. It also involved a review of their “suitcase,” which is a col-
lection of all of their filled out worksheets, skill training guidelines, and personalized sets
of coping strategies that they will take with them.

CONCLUSION
As this case illustrates, the FOCUS Program was designed as a brief intervention to
enhance family resilience through a series of practical activities that identify major stres-
sors and promote specific resilient processes. Our model builds many key transactional
processes that were identified in Walsh’s (2003, 2006) family resilience framework, orga-
nized in three domains of family functioning–communication processes, organizational
patterns, and belief systems. As Walsh has elaborated, we find in our work with families
that these core resilience processes are recursive and synergistic across domains.
The FOCUS narrative sharing and subsequent skill practice and assignments are
designed to build open and effective communication as an antidote to familial misattribu-
tions and estrangement. In the case example, movement toward greater clarity and open-
ness was initiated in the parent sessions when they were able to pinpoint the sources of
long-term misunderstandings and share essential context and backstory that permitted a
softening of polarized positions. In bearing witness to each other’s narratives in a nonde-
fensive manner, they were able to extend their perspective-taking skills and mutually
appreciate the fact that there is not only one “truth” in a conflicted encounter. By allowing

www.FamilyProcess.org
SALTZMAN / 657
themselves to openly share and discuss their hurt and anger over past and current diffi-
culties, they expanded their tolerance for the expression of differences and strong emo-
tions—a change that will hopefully enlarge the overall scope of expression across the
family.
The openness and collaborative practice initiated in the parent sessions and carried
through to the family sessions is also designed to foster key characteristics of resilient
family organization. One hallmark of resilient families is that they have sufficient flexibil-
ity to adapt to changing circumstances and demands while maintaining family integrity
and core family structure. This balancing act is aided by having clear and responsive fam-
ily communication, clear roles, boundaries and leadership, and a flexible and collaborative
approach to dealing with challenges (Walsh, 2003). Almost all of the skills and practice
exercises from which the FOCUS trainer clinician can select are intended to build those
exact capacities: from collaborative goal setting, to family problem solving, to leveraging
relationships to manage strong emotions, to collectively identifying and responding to
trauma and loss reminders, to the practice of holding family meetings. In the sequence of
sessions, parents are first stabilized as a team, then the child-sibling dyad is supported
and given voice, then parents are coached on how to take leadership of family meetings
and determine what to share and what not to share from their narratives; all are in service
of maintaining clear leadership, boundaries and roles, and consistency in care routines.
The program architecture and content, then, is specifically designed to build resilient fam-
ily organization.
Finally, the FOCUS Program is designed to help family members develop a coherent
sense of what they have been through, draw upon each other to make meaning of these
experiences, access a foundation of shared beliefs, and maintain a hopeful and confident
outlook. These characteristics, in the domain of resilient belief systems, are pivotal to a
family’s adaptive response to stressful change and trauma. One of the central purposes of
the sequenced narrative timeline activity, from parent, to child, to family, is to increase a
sense of coherence and shared understanding of what they have been through. The belief
that the traumatic experience is knowable and manageable is supported by the graphic
rendering of individual narratives and the ability to visually survey the ups and downs of
their experience, noting individual differences, strengths, and successes at a glance. Fur-
ther, in the family sessions, as parents are helped to listen to their children and then pro-
vide helpful context for understanding traumatic or adverse experiences, they are gaining
practice in scaffolding children’s perceptions, assumptions, and beliefs about themselves,
others, and the world and to collectively make meaning of their experiences (Saltzman
et al., 2013).
Over the past decade, the FOCUS Family Resilience Program has been used in a wide
variety of settings with diverse populations contending with complex forms of trauma and
loss. A common experience has been that in most cases, even in well-resourced treatment
settings, the family dimension of mental health work is frequently underserved. One bar-
rier is the misconception that family work must be intensive, of fairly long duration, and
require clinicians with extensive training. The successful national dissemination of the
FOCUS Program with strong outcomes for a wide range of family presentations suggests
that a brief, manualized family intervention program administered by masters-level clini-
cians may meet this important service need. As demonstrated by the large-scale use of
FOCUS by the Los Angeles County of Department of Mental Health, the largest mental
health organization in the nation, perhaps FOCUS is best applied as a practical and flexi-
ble family module, which may be used in conjunction with other evidence-based treatment
programs and as an integrated part of a system of care designed to systematically assess
and provide a spectrum of services that treats the whole person within the context of fam-
ily and community.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 55, December, 2016

658 / FAMILY PROCESS

REFERENCES
Beardslee, W. R., Klosinski, L. E., Saltzman, W., & Lester, P. (2013). Dissemination of family- centered preven-
tion for military and veteran families: Adaptations and adoption within community and military systems of
care. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 16, 394–409.
Beardslee, W. R., Wright, E. J., Gladstone, T. R., & Forbes, P. (2007). Long-term effects from a randomized trial
of two public health preventive interventions for parental depression. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 703–
713.
Biglan, A., Flay, B. R., Embry, D. D., & Sandler, I. N. (2012). The critical role of nurturing environments for pro-
moting human well-being. American Psychologist, 67, 257–271.
Cozza, S. J. (2015). Meeting the intervention needs of military children and families. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 54, 247–248.
Cozza, S. J., Holmes, A. K., & Van Ost, S. L. (2013). Family-centered care for military and veteran families
affected by combat injury. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 16(3), 311–321.
Gewirtz, A., Forgatch, M., & Wieling, E. (2008). Parenting practices as potential mechanisms for child adjustment
following mass trauma. Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, 34, 177–192.
Goldenberg, H., & Goldenberg, I. (2013). Family therapy: An overview (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Greene, S. M., Anderson, E., Hetherington, E. M., Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. S. (2003). Risk and resilience
after divorce. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (pp. 96–120). New York: Guilford Press.
Institute of Medicine, Committee on the Assessment of Ongoing Efforts in the Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder, Board on the Health of Select Populations (2014). PTSD programs and services in the department of
defense and the department of veterans affairs. In Institute of Medicine. Treatment for Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder in Military and Veteran Populations: Final Assessment (pp. 47–77). Washington, DC: National Aca-
demies Press.
Layne, C. M., Saltzman, W. R., Poppleton, L., Burlingame, G. M., Pasalic, A., Durakovic, E. et al. (2008). Effec-
tiveness of a school-based group psychotherapy program for war-exposed adolescents: A randomized con-
trolled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(9), 1048–1062.
doi:10.1097/CHI.0b013e31817eecae.
Lebow, J. L., & Uliaszek, A. A. (2010). Family therapy for personality disorder: An evidence based approach. In J.
Magnavita (Ed.), Evidence based treatments for personality disorder (pp. 193–222). Washington, DC: APA Books.
Lester, P., Liang, L., Milburn, N., Mogil, C., Woodward, K., Nash, W. et al. (2016). Evaluation of a family-cen-
tered preventive intervention for military families: Parent and child longitudinal outcomes. Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 55(1), 14–24. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2015.10.009.
Lester, P., Saltzman, W. R., Woodward, K., Glover, D., Leskin, G. A., Bursch, B. et al. (2012). Evaluation of a fam-
ily-centered prevention intervention for military children and families facing wartime deployments. American
Journal of Public Health, 102(Suppl 1), S48–S54. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.300088.
Lochman, J. E., & van den Steenhoven, A. (2002). Family-based approaches to substance abuse prevention. The
Journal of Primary Prevention, 23(1), 49–114. doi:10.1023/A:1016591216363.
Lester, P., Stein, J. A., Saltzman, W., Woodward, K., MacDermid, S. W., Milburn, N., et al. (2013). Psychological
health of military children: Longitudinal evaluation of a family-centered prevention program to enhance
family resilience. Military Medicine, 178(8), 838–845. doi:10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00502.
Lucksted, A., McFarlane, W., Downing, D., Dixon, L., & Adams, C. (2012). Recent developments in family psy-
choeducation as an evidence-based practice. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 1, 101–121.
Masten, A. S., & Narayan, A. J. (2012). Child development in the context of disaster, war and terrorism: Path-
ways of risk and resilience. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 227–257.
McGoldrick, M., Gerson, R., & Petry, S. (2008). Genograms: Assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). New York:
Norton.
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2009a). Depression in parents, parenting and children:
Opportunities to improve identification, treatment, and prevention efforts. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12565.
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2009b). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral dis-
orders among young people: Progress and possibilities. In M. E. O’Connell, T. Boat & and. K. E. Warner
(Eds.), Committee on prevention of mental disorders and substance abuse among children, youth, and young
adults: Research advances and promising interventions. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. (pp. 184–239) Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12480.
Patterson, J. M. (2002). Integrating family resilience and family stress theory. Journal of Marriage and Family,
64, 349–360.
Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Lee, M., Lin, Y. Y., & Lester, P. (2004). Six-year intervention outcomes for adolescent
children of parents with the human immunodeficiency virus. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine,
158, 742–748. doi:10.1001/archpedi.158.8.742.

www.FamilyProcess.org
SALTZMAN / 659
Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Stein, J. A., & Lester, P. (2006). Adolescent adjustment over six years in HIV-affected
families. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(2), 174–182.
Rozensky, R. H., Celano, M., & Kaslow, N. (2013). Implications of the Affordable Care Act for the practice of fam-
ily psychology. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 2(3), 163–178.
Saltzman, W. R., Bartoletti, M., Lester, P., & Beardslee, W. R. (2014). Building resilience in military families. In
S. J. Cozza, M. N. Goldenberg, R. J. Ursano, S. J. Cozza, M. N. Goldenberg & R. J. Ursano (Eds.), Care of mili-
tary service members, veterans, and their families (pp. 277–297). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publish-
ing Inc.
Saltzman, W. R., Lester, P., Beardslee, W., & Pynoos, R. (2007). FOCUS family resilience enhancement program
training manual (2nd edn). (unpublished manual).
Saltzman, W. R., Lester, P., Beardslee, W. R., Layne, C. M., Woodward, K., & Nash, W. P. (2011). Mechanisms of
risk and resilience in military families: Theoretical and empirical basis of a family-focused resilience enhance-
ment program. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 14, 213–230.
Saltzman, W. R., Lester, P., Milburn, N., Woodward, K., & Stein, J. (2016). Pathways of risk and resilience:
Impact of a family resilience program on active-duty military parents. Family Process, 55(4), 633–646.
Saltzman, W. R., Lester, P., Pynoos, R., Mogil, C., Green, S., Layne, C. M. et al. (2009). FOCUS Family Resilience
Enhancement Training Manual (2nd ed.). Unpublished manual, UCLA.
Saltzman, W. R., Pynoos, R. S., Lester, P., Layne, C. M., & Beardslee, W. R. (2013). Enhancing family resilience
through family narrative co-construction. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 16(3), 294–310.
Sandler, I. N., Ayers, T. S., Wolchik, S. A., Tein, J. Y., Kwok, O. M., Lin, K. et al. (2003). Family bereavement pro-
gram: Efficacy of a theory-based preventive intervention for parentally bereaved children and adolescents.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 587–600.
Spoth, R. L., Kavanagh, K., & Dishion, T. (2002). Family-centered preventive intervention science: Toward bene-
fits to larger populations of children, youth, and families. Prevention Science, 3, 145–152.
UCLA NFRC (2013). FOCUS on the go! (Version 1.0) [Mobile application software]. Los Angeles: Nathanson
Family Resilience Center, UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Behavior.
Walsh, F. (2003). Family resilience: A framework for clinical practice. Family Process, 42(1), 1–18.
Walsh, F. (2006). Strengthening family resilience (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Walsh, F. (2007). Traumatic loss and major disasters: Strengthening family and community resilience. Family
Process, 46(2), 207–227.
Walsh, F. (2016). Strengthening family resilience (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Weisz, J. R., & Kazdin, A. E. (Eds.) (2010). Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents. New
York: Guilford Press.
Wolchik, S. A., Sandler, I. N., Millsap, R. E., Plummer, B. A., Greene, S. M., Anderson, E. R. et al. (2002). Six-
year follow-up of a randomized, controlled trial of preventive interventions for children of divorce. JAMA, 288,
1874–1881.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 55, December, 2016