Collaborative problem-solving

• the same conflict happens repeatedly
• ordinary rewards or consequences have not solved the problem
• a demand repeatedly becomes impossible
• adults and the young person appear trapped in opposing positions
• the young person has useful insight when given time to explain
• the solution requires changes from adults as well as the young person

Approach type: Practice approach
Primary purpose: Participation
Also supports: Relationships · Regulation · Independence
Scope: Individual · Family · Classroom · Staff/team
Tier: Targeted → individualised

• adults deciding the answer and asking the young person to agree
• giving a choice between two predetermined adult solutions
• debating who was right
• negotiating away every important expectation
• having the conversation during peak distress

Phoenix uses the term for a broad practice family. Two current named models use similar initials: Collaborative & Proactive Solutions, associated with Ross Greene and Lives in the Balance, and Collaborative Problem Solving®, associated with Think:Kids at Massachusetts General Hospital. Record the actual programme and version when either is used. Their current identities and the generic family are not interchangeable. Lives in the Balance; Think:Kids.

The adult changes how the problem is defined and how a solution can be reached: seek accessible accounts of each person’s concern, distinguish a concern from a preferred answer, explain practical constraints, and negotiate options the young person can understand and use. Writing, drawing, augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), a trusted person or several short exchanges may make participation possible. Do not make immediate verbal insight a condition of being heard.

If the young person is distressed or cannot yet take part, address the immediate situation and offer a later, accessible route to contribute. An immediate meeting, a forced apology or a choice between inaccessible options does not establish collaboration. Where a safety or practical constraint limits the options, explain it honestly and identify what can still change; do not present a decision already made as a jointly negotiated solution.

A004 remains the general collaborative family. A named model needs its own identity, version, training and fidelity record. Similar questions or terminology do not demonstrate that the model was delivered, and evidence for a named programme must remain attached to that programme, population and outcome.

This is a constructed illustration, not a reported case or an observed outcome.

Imagine a disagreement about the end-of-day transport arrangement. A pupil does not want to leave through the usual crowded exit. Adults have offered two alternatives quickly, using route descriptions the pupil cannot follow, and ask for an immediate meeting while the pupil is distressed. Neither the options nor the timing currently provide a usable way to participate.

The adult first makes sure there is an appropriate immediate plan for leaving safely. Later, at a workable time, the pupil can use their preferred communication, a familiar route map or support from a trusted person to explain the difficulty. The adult explains which transport timing and supervision constraints are fixed and checks which exit, waiting place or preparation arrangements can actually change. Together they could consider a small set of understandable options and agree what to try, without requiring an apology or agreement with the adult’s account of the disagreement.

Review would ask whether the pupil could contribute, whether the agreed adult changes happened and whether the arrangement addressed the stated concerns. A completed journey or a quiet meeting would not by itself show that the choices were accessible or the problem was solved.

Define the recurring problem

Be specific about what keeps becoming difficult.

Understand the young person's perspective

Listen without immediately defending the adult position.

State the adult concern

Adults can have legitimate needs around safety, learning and the wider group.

Generate solutions together

A good solution needs to address both sets of concerns.

Test and review

Solutions are hypotheses, not permanent contracts.

The process may happen through:

• conversation
• writing
• drawing
• visual mapping
• AAC
• several short discussions
• preparation with a trusted adult
• delayed discussion after an incident

Collaborative problem-solving can be used by teachers, families and support staff.

A defined programme may require substantial training, supervision and practice. The clinical trials reviewed used supported delivery; they do not isolate training as the cause of better implementation or establish that reading a short guide reproduces the tested programme. Clinical trial.

Specific named models should be used according to their own training and implementation guidance.

The proposed rationale is that sharing different accounts of a problem may reveal a barrier or an option that adults have missed. Giving the young person a meaningful role is an editorial commitment here. It should be checked in the actual interaction rather than assumed from the approach’s name.

The reviewed clinical studies evaluate complete named treatment packages. They do not establish that this generic process always improves agency, identifies otherwise hidden barriers, or builds transferable problem-solving skills.

• an accessible opportunity for the young person to influence the response
• a clearer account of the practical problem
• a discussion that does not assign blame in advance
• opportunities to consider and review options together
• attention to changes adults or the environment may need to make

These are intended features and review questions, not benefits guaranteed by participation or demonstrated for every application of the generic family.

Not every problem is immediately negotiable.

Adults retain responsibilities around:

• safety
• safeguarding
• access to education
• rights of others

Some young people may also find direct problem-solving conversations difficult without communication or relational support.

• do not begin with a predetermined solution
• avoid asking “why?” repeatedly when the young person cannot yet explain
• do not use collaboration as another way of obtaining compliance
• solutions should require realistic change from adults where appropriate
• do not conduct complex problem-solving during crisis

1. identify one recurring unsolved problem
2. describe it without blame
3. understand the young person's concern
4. explain the adult concern
5. generate possible solutions together
6. choose something realistic
7. try it
8. review whether it solved the actual problem

The clearest comparative evidence reviewed concerns Greene’s Collaborative & Proactive Solutions as a clinical package for children aged 7–14 with oppositional defiant disorder, rather than every activity described as collaborative problem-solving. Trials found improvements in ODD outcomes and tested comparisons with parent management training. The Australian community trial also found a post-treatment global-severity outcome favouring parent management training, so “equivalent on every outcome” would be inaccurate. Ollendick and colleagues; Murrihy and colleagues.

Both trials excluded autistic participants and some other developmental or clinical groups. This limits transfer from these trials; it is not evidence that a person in an excluded group cannot participate in supported collaboration. Accessible communication adaptations remain important editorial safeguards, but this review has not established their equivalence to the tested protocols.

School reports and inpatient implementation studies provide additional, context-specific signals. Before-and-after changes in staff stress, discipline or restrictive practices do not isolate a collaborative component from training, consultation and wider service changes. One inpatient report recorded a transient increase in staff injuries during early implementation. The presence or absence of recorded adverse events needs its own appraisal. School pilot; Inpatient study.

Do not use symptom improvement, fewer referrals or an adult’s positive rating as a substitute for the young person’s account, genuine choice or access to participation. The detailed profile records the source-specific findings, contradictory result, access limits and remaining questions.

This review retains the source-specific findings and limits of the September 2026 review. This is a targeted review, not an exhaustive systematic review, a formal evidence grade or a completed specialist consultation. It does not determine which support is right for an individual young person.

These working tags describe the approach’s focus. Conditional connections depend on the particular barrier, goal and application. They do not replace professional delivery roles.

The inherited Participation purpose describes an intended outcome. The direct topic here describes the approach’s central process: shared understanding and joint problem resolution. Connections to thinking skills or agency, safety and participation depend on the problem being addressed.

Direct focus

• 03 Communication & connection — Understanding each person’s concern and jointly developing a workable response are the approach’s active content.

Conditional connections

• 02 Thinking, attention & action — Relevant when identifying options, planning a trial or changing strategy is a specified support target.
• 06 Agency, safety & participation — Relevant when the problem concerns choice, access or participation and the young person’s priorities can change the solution.

These entries offer related reading for the situations described. A link expresses the specific connection below; it does not establish individual suitability or an effect of the approach.

• E099 Difficulty resolving disagreements and repairing relationships — Read alongside this approach when a disagreement has left people needing to clarify concerns and decide what happens next. Collaboration does not require an apology, renewed contact or repair that the young person does not want.
• E002 Demand avoidance — Read alongside this approach when a recurring demand has become difficult and the particular barrier needs to be understood. The presentation does not establish one cause or show that a named collaborative model is indicated.
• E059 Difficulty making choices and decisions — Read alongside this approach when offered options are hard to understand, compare or use. Allow accessible information, time and supported decisions; a predetermined answer or pressure to choose is not collaboration.