Target Problems are those concerns that the practitioner and client explicitly agree will become the focus of their work together. These problems are based on what the client wants as these are examined and expressed in the initial encounters with the practitioner. In this process, as will be shown, the client's initial conception may undergo change or unexpressed difficulties may be brought to light. But, however the process unfolds, target problems are acknowledged problems, that is the cient must explicitly agree that a concern is his or her problem to be solved. "My kids are in foster care. I want them back." "I'm tired of feeling terrible about myself." "My mom bugs me." All these are examples of acknowledged (though not yet carefully specified) problems. As the last example in particular illustrates, clients do not have to accept personal resonsibility for the problems they acknowledge. However, if what a client sees as a problem is the behavior of someone else, he or she may be limited in options for solution.
Collaterals, practitioners, family members, and others may refer to a client as having problems they (the clients) do not acknowledge. "Mrs. Mandel is a neglectful mother," says a referring clergyman. (Mrs. Mandel stoutly denies the allegation). "Terry has a lot of repressed anger," concludes his social worker. (Terry insists he is not angry at anyone). These are examples of attributed problems. In task-centered practice, such problems do not provide a basis for collaborative work with clients to whom the problems have been attributed. Problem attributions may be useful in locating areas in which target problems may be found, in identifying obstacles to solution, or in providing ideas for the practitioner's diagnostic thinking, but would not constitute principal targets of intervention. Thus, a wife may complain that her husband has a drinking problem, which he denies. The acknowledged problem thus far belongs to the wife, who, with the practitioner's help, may pursue different options, including trying to persuade her husband to acknowledge his drinking problem. The distinction between acknowledged and attributed problems clarifies who has the problem that will be the focus of work and sets the direction for this work to follow.
There are two basic reasons for our restriction of service to acknowledged target problems. One reason is ethical: clients are entitled to service for difficulties that they understand and that truly bother them; further, clients have the right to know about and approve whatever change efforts the practitioner plans to proceed with. The other is pragmatic: clients who own their problems are more likely to work harder and more effectively at solving them than clients who have only a dim notion of difficulties that they do no fully acknowledge.
But doesn't this emphasis on client-perceived target problems simply reflect a generally accepted standard of practice? Although most practioners would endorse the idea of coming to an agreement with the client on problems to be dealt with in treatment, there are many shadings of opinion that need to be considered. Some common practices that differ from our position include the following: 1) coming to an agreement with the client on the problem at a general level without specifying particulars, which may mask real disagreement at lower levels of abstraction; 2) agreeing with the cient on a specific problem but not discussing "underlying" or contextual issues which the practitioner hopes to change as a means of resolving the specific problem; 3) by-passing explicit agreement with the client on what the problems are but relating to difficulties as the client brings them up; 4) pursuit of a practitioner-defined problem based on his or her conception of what is normal, healthy, desirable, and so on. In the present model then, a target problem is a construction that emerges through the interaction of the client and practitioner. It is this joint construction that will guide their collaborative, problem-solving efforts.