Executive Function Coaching as an Intervention for Clients with ADHD

By Elton Sanders, BS

People with ADHD often struggle with executive functioning. Executive functioning includes crucial cognitive processes such as initiating, prioritizing and switching tasks, working memory, planning, and emotional regulation. Executive functioning differences cause challenges in a variety of areas, including work, school and relationships, and can lead people to believe they are “broken” and unable to achieve their goals.

While medication alone has been shown to significantly improve ADHD symptoms, it does not teach the skills necessary to improve executive functioning. Many clients can benefit from ADHD coaching, which helps teach these skills.

ADHD coaching (sometimes referred to as executive function or EF coaching) is a form of life coaching conducted by people who specialize in working with ADHD. Like traditional life coaching, it is client-centered and client-driven.

An important part of ADHD coaching is informing clients of how their particular ADHD appears in different aspects of their life. Coaches help clients break down and understand their own thought processes. They provide clients with strategies to manage the condition, such as scheduling, setting timers, and breaking down tasks, as well as tools for emotional regulation.

ADHD coaching often takes a strengths-based approach, with the coach identifying strengths and successes in the client’s life. This creates intrinsic motivation, which is important as people with ADHD often struggle with motivation, especially for tasks that they do not find interesting. They will also use the client’s interests and values to motivate them.

Psychiatrist William Dodson says people with ADHD have an interest based nervous system, and can only get engaged in tasks if they are personally interesting, challenging, novel, or urgent. (This differs from neurotypicals, who have an importance based nervous system; the engagement is based on the importance of the task, with personal interest being less of a factor.)

Clients may see a coach for a variety of reasons, including difficulties with work, school, or home organization. Some clients may see a coach for a specific goal, such as writing a book or starting a business.

There are many organizations that certify coaches, including the ADHD Coaches Organization (ACO). Coaching can be done virtually or in person. Many coaches allow free interviews; ask clients to interview the coach first to see if they will work well together.

When picking a coach, it can be useful if the coach has experience in areas important to the client (such as business or subjects the client is learning in school.)

ADHD coaching can be an effective intervention for ADHD, especially when combined with medication and therapy. If a client has ADHD, consider referring them to an ADHD coach to help them learn the skills to thrive.

RESOURCES

(2018) A Descriptive Review of ADHD Coaching Research: Implications for College Students

(Podcast) Spotlight on Neurodiversity: Permission to Proceed - ADHD Coaching with David Giwerc

https://chadd.org/about-adhd/coaching/

https://addcoach4u.com/adhd-problems-i-help-my-clients-solve/

https://addca.com/adhd-coach-training/ADHD-Blog-Details/adhd_coaching_an_integral_component_of_effective_comprehensive_treatment_fo/

Restraint Collapse: Why Transitions are so Difficult for Gifted Children

What Counselors Need to Know

By Elton Sanders, BS

Many gifted children appear to be doing fine during the school day and suddenly become overwhelmed shortly afterwards. This can happen even on days where it looks like nothing “bad” happened at school. They may become emotionally dysregulated as soon as they leave school. This can take the form of:

•  Meltdowns and emotional outbursts
• Anger, irritability, and impulsivity
• Crying
• Difficulty responding to basic requests
• Becoming withdrawn

The concept of restraint collapse suggests that while gifted or otherwise neurodivergent children may appear outwardly fine during the school day, this takes a great deal of effort for them. They have had to suppress behaviors and spend the day away from home in a place that oftentimes does not support their needs. All of this stress is released when the child is finally in a safe space.

• They may have had to deal with:
• Sensory overload
• Intense boredom from schoolwork not being intellectually stimulated enough
• Masking (having to hide challenges and abilities associated with giftedness to fit in, even if their academic and social needs as gifted children are unmet)
• Suppressing impulses (i.e. not calling out answers constantly)
• Listening to, understanding, and following instructions
• Socialization difficulties
• Changes in routines which can feel overwhelming

Restraint collapse is not a behavioral problem or intentional defiance. It is important to consider what the child needs and is trying to communicate through their behavior.

Children going through restraint collapse have exhausted much of their ability to self-regulate. It is difficult for them to respond to questions and complete tasks. It is important that the parents provide a safe space for the child to regulate without adding to the pressure they are feeling. 

As a counselor you can suggest to parents that they avoid asking questions (even a simple “How was your day?”) or assigning tasks as soon as their child arrives home from school. Immediately providing advice can make things worse, as the child may not be able to process the advice as a result of feeling overwhelmed at school.

Restraint collapse often occurs during transitions. Transitions require a lot for gifted children; one must stop the current task, shift attention, and begin the next, all while remembering steps and regulating emotions. Constant and predictable routines at home after school can provide predictability, help with transitions by providing certainty and take pressure off the child.

Restraint collapse may occur more during the start and end of the school year, as the beginning is a transition period and stress has accumulated at the end of the year. It can also appear again after a particularly difficult day.

Explaining restraint collapse can help a family better understand and support their child. Explanations can help the child feel more in control, as they start to learn why they act the way they do. This helps with developing the ability to self-regulate. 

RESOURCES



https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/restraint-collapse/

https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/tips-for-parents-understanding-transitions-restraint-collapse-and-the-gifted-brain/

https://www.davidsongifted.org/resource-library/davidson-gifted-perspectives/emotion-regulation-during-restraint-collapse/

https://www.sensorydirect.com/blog/why-does-my-child-struggle-after-school/

How One Nation/One Project Provided Art and Research With and for Communities: Implications for Mental Health and Addictions Treatment

By Elton Sanders, BS

From 2021 to 2024, One Nation/One Project (ONOP) created art programs in 18 cities throughout the U.S. The One Nation/One Project (ONOP) initiative began its Arts for EveryBody campaign in 2021 in response to the widespread isolation and mental health challenges caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

ONOP succeeded in bringing people together, as shown by the 12.6% increase in social cohesion and 56.4% increase in arts participation across the 18 communities. It has been shown that participation in the arts has a number of benefits. Arts engagement has been linked to a 48% lower risk of depression and a 44% lower risk of developing dementia among older adults in the UK. The World Health Organization published a review detailing the many benefits of arts participation.

Today, public health professionals are often tasked with systemic issues, including mental health crises, gun violence, and loneliness. Many approaches focus mainly on providing clinical solutions while neglecting the broader, community aspect.

ONOP worked closely with each community to develop programs specifically for them. For example, in Gainesville, Florida, ONOP worked with youth and adolescents who planned to reduce gun violence by promoting arts and culture. The two groups collaborated to ensure the programs would be available to the youth who needed it most.

In Chicago, Illinois, ONOP trained 10 artists as public health workers and employed them at clinics throughout the city. They helped provide clients with treatment through art while assisting with community outreach. The program also helped with the lack of employment for artists during the pandemic.

ONOP used art to gather data about the lived experience of local residents. This research was then used to apply for grants for the art programs. ONOP created participatory murals that allowed residents to write responses to questions. Early on, nine communities were asked the following question via site visit;

“What do you see/hear/smell/touch/taste that is unique to your [community]?”

Poet and ONOP research and impact associate, Gray Davidson Caroll created poems using the responses. These poems helped ONOP members understand how people within the communities saw themselves. Using art for the surveys made them more appealing, drawing additional participants while also giving them a meaningful experience. 

ONOP took steps to ensure the 18 communities were the primary beneficiaries of their research. Instead of waiting for journal publication, ONOP made the data publicly available as soon as possible. Research often extracts data without offering anything to the group(s) involved, but ONOP made sure to deliver immediate benefits in exchange for participation.

One Nation/One Project shows that art and research can be combined effectively. It also shows that centering a group when working with them can help them heal.

Implications for mental health and addictions treatment

Individuals with mental health challenges and substance use disorder were greatly impacted by Covid 19. In isolation, relapse rates increased, drug overdose deaths reached an all-time high, binge drinking increased as did depression and suicide. The mental health and SUD professions have a long history of the use of art as a treatment and recovery tool. While clinicians anecdotally believe artistic interventions are helpful, they cite little research to back their beliefs. ONOP offers evidence that the use of the arts can be particularly therapeutic in the midst of catastrophes like COVID 19. Let us be creative in our approaches to help clients heal!

RESOURCES

https://howlround.com/how-creative-research-strategies-can-center-community-voices

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/how-the-arts-can-create-healthier-communities/

Arts for EveryBody Full Report

ONOP Advisory Brief for Public Health Leaders

Giftedness in Adulthood: A Brief Introduction for Counselors and Therapists

By Elton Sanders, BS

This is the third post in a series.

Giftedness is a topic that is mainly talked about in children. The majority of resources on giftedness focuses on gifted children. However, giftedness is understood to affect people across the lifespan. The focus on childhood leads to many gifted adults having their issues go unnoticed. Adult giftedness is an important yet underdiscussed aspect of giftedness.

Some gifted adults are diagnosed later in life, having not been called gifted as a child. Others were diagnosed as a child but are not aware of how it affects them in adulthood. If they are not aware of their giftedness, they may instead blame themselves by, for instance, thinking that they are lazy. Identifying giftedness and how it affects a client’s life gives them a framework to better understand themselves.

Gifted people experience asynchronous development and may have certain skills highly developed while others are less developed or average. This can lead to difficulties later in life, as the skills that are less developed become more necessary and/or cannot be masked by the more developed skills.

Gifted adults also experience Gifted Trauma, which refers to traumatic experiences common to many gifted people. These include:

Persistent alienation since childhood .

Having gifted specific needs minimized by others around them.

Existential crises (sometimes starting at a young age, sometimes mistaken for clinical depression).

Giftedness, particularly in adulthood, is not seen by many people as something that can be aided by accommodations or therapy. These reasons lead many gifted people to feel ashamed of these challenges and not seek help.

Gifted people can experience additional trauma in therapy. They may have a therapist who doesn’t understand giftedness or take it seriously. Gifted people can often analyze their own issues in great detail. Many therapists assume this means the client is fine and does not need any help.

While everyone has defense mechanisms, gifted clients can create elaborate defense mechanisms to deny their issues, which can potentially mislead therapists. These issues can lead to gifted people feeling that they have been a bad client, which further adds to their shame and trauma.

For many gifted people, it is essential that they work towards their full potential. A 2025 study claims that perceived level of potential achievement is a strong protective factor for gifted adults. Low income was identified as a risk factor, as it makes it harder to work towards this potential. Asking about future goals and obstacles that make it difficult to achieve them is important when working with gifted clients.

When working with a client who is or may be gifted, ask if they have been evaluated and about signs they may be gifted. Consider sending them to a therapist who specializes in giftedness. It is important to validate their (often complex) feelings about giftedness without attaching moral judgment. This can help them work through shame of having challenges related to giftedness.

RESOURCES

Poirier, J., Brault-Labbé, A., & Brassard, A. (2025). Living With the Gift of Giftedness: An Exploratory Study on the Well-Being of Intellectually Gifted Adults. Gifted Child Quarterly, 69(4), 367-385. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862251347293

https://www.divergentpod.com/blog/ep-82

https://intergifted.com/conversations-gifted-trauma/

https://intergifted.com/supporting-gifted-people/

https://intergifted.com/giftedness-therapy/

Revisiting the Article That Sent Shockwaves Throughout the Substance Use Disorder Profession

By Mark Sanders and Bill Stauffer

In 2005 historian William White, MA published an article in the Great Lakes ATTC Bulletin titled, Recovery Management: What if we Really Believed Addiction was a Chronic Disorder? The article captured the profession’s attention and imagination as it challenged how we were currently doing business at that time (the Acute Care Model) and paved the way for the profession to think about how recovery outcomes would be different if we truly believed addiction was a chronic and progressive illness if we shifted from the acute care model solely towards a recovery-oriented system of care. White wrote:

Severe and persistent AOD problems have been collectively depicted as a “chronic, progressive disease” for more than 200 years, but their historical treatment more closely resembles interventions into acute health conditions (e.g., traumatic injuries, bacterial infections). More closely resembling emergency room visits in comparison to how we treat chronic and progressive conditions like cancer and diabetes.

In the article White advocated for a recovery-oriented approach as he mentioned some of the limitations of the Acute Care Model, including:

• Failure to Attract. Less than 10% of individuals with SUD seek treatment per year and most of those admitted arrive under coercive influences.
• Failure to Engage/Retain. Half of those admitted to treatment do not complete it and 18% of those admitted are administratively discharged.
• Inadequate Service Dose. The majority of individuals admitted for acute care treatment do not receive NIDA’s recommended optimal dosage of treatment (90 days of continuous support post discharge).
• Lack of Continuing Care. Only one in five clients receive continuing care following acute care treatment, in comparison with clients with cancer who are monitored for 5 years or individuals with diabetes who may be monitored for life.

Recovery Outcomes. We know more than we did in 2005. In respect to White’s point on service dose, a study examining the NIDA principles of recovery in 2013 found that “clients (who) participated in treatment 12 weeks or more had virtually the same drug use outcomes as those with participation of less than 12 weeks.” For services to have any impact at all, treatment and recovery support must extend to a minimum of 90 days. Even as we write this, most people in our nation do not get the minimum effective dose of care. We do not even know the number of who get the minimum effective dose of treatment. The U.S. addiction treatment system does not routinely ensure that everyone who enters treatment receives a minimum of 90 days of care, nor does it routinely follow everyone after discharge from acute or residential treatment to determine longer-term outcomes. The closest thing we have is the TEDS data set, but it only accounts for public funding. That data set averages around one in three getting the minimum amount of effective treatment by the measure of duration. For any condition we took seriously, knowing this number so we could remain focused on changing the outcome would be a fundamental measure.

The majority of individuals leaving acute care treatment return to drug use within the first year of leaving treatment, most occurring within the first 90 days of discharge. This leads to the revolving door syndrome, providing expensive care at the front end without bothering to assure long term outcomes through engagement after they leave an episode of care. We even at times see that those administrative discharges can occur when the needs of the people served are not matched with the capacity or design of the service setting. This can occur all too often when insurance providers ration and delay care. All of this increases the stigma of addiction, and the belief that treatment does not work! History reveals that this leads to more punitive measures to address substance use disorder. The year that White wrote the article, the prison population was 2.5 million, disproportionately individuals with AOD challenges. A lesson we should learn is that we cannot incarcerate our way out of having a pervasive addiction challenge in America. Yet if we fail to build a more comprehensive, longer term recovery model that delivers results, history shows us that simply locking people up seems to be the all too common politically expedient outcome.

This was a dramatic increase from the estimated 400,000 incarcerated in 1985. It reflects how from a policy perspective we as a society saw addiction as a lack of morality or a character flaw to punish rather than a condition to assist people in resolving. White’s call to shift the field towards a recovery-oriented system of care was Revolutionary! The article preceded his trailblazing recovery-oriented systems of care Monograph series.

In this post we will revisit White’s 2005 groundbreaking article and provide commentary on how we are doing as a profession today as it pertains to the vision captured in the article. Today, the addictions profession is a Tale of Two Cities in a land that has not made the fundamental shifts that would transform our care system. Some programs and some geographical regions have clearly shifted from the acute care model towards a recovery-oriented system of care anchored in the natural environment. This is evident by the dramatic increase in Recovery Community Organizations (RCO’s) nationwide, which are navigating our patchwork funding system grant to grant to strengthen recovery communities. The increase in recovery coaches providing ongoing, pre-treatment, in-treatment and post-treatment recovery support, ongoing, anchored in the natural environment, long-term recovery check-up, efforts to measure increases in recovery capital over time and the innovation of Recovery Cities as discussed by Dr. David Best.

Other programs and regions are continuing to do business as usual with a continued use of the acute care model solely, for numerous reasons:

• Some programs and systems of care “didn’t receive the memo!” They have been so busy with assessments, admissions, withdrawal management, acute care services, treatment planning and discharge planning that they are unaware that a recovery-oriented systems of care revolution is occurring around them. Some programs have no recovery coaches on staff, are unaware of RCO’s in their community and have never heard of recovery cities.
• Insurance reimbursement favors acute care treatment. Few Americans even have insurance plans that cover the minimum level of effective care in respect to duration of services. These systems aggressively meter out those services like we must use them sparingly even as the costs to society for failing to do so are immense. This becomes a cost shift to our public funding mechanisms as the acute interventions fail and insurance coverage is lost for the person who is addicted.
• State funding. Acute care programs continue to be funded by states whereas recovery-oriented programs and recovery community organizations are far too often considered specialty programs.
• Our documented outcomes are nearly always measured by treatment completion rather than longer term recovery outcomes focused on global improvement in health and functioning that are durable over time.
• Limited follow up. Many if not the vast majority of systems of care and related programs continue to treat “aftercare as an afterthought.” They are unaware of the need for continuous care anchored in the natural environment. As a system we even lack the focus in our framing of post-acute treatment care and support. Consider oncology treatment. When a person gets a tumor removed or completes chemo, we do not think of the stages of care beyond those acute steps as “extra” we understand that achieving sustained remission is a multi-step process requiring a series of interventions, services and adherence to a longer-term care plan. The same is true for substance use conditions, particularly in its more severe forms. It is still the case that for our national treatment and recovery support system to routinely do so remains a radical notion two decades after this essay.
• Society still expects a cure or a simple intervention. A quick gold standard tool that resolves everything. Substance use conditions are some of the most complex conditions we face, and their resolution is equally complex and multifaceted. Much of the general public is still unaware of the ebb and flow between treatment and a return of symptoms, sometimes repeatedly over years before there is sustained recovery.
• Treatment is viewed as separate from recovery. Some programs still view treatment as separate from recovery. We know that long term recovery is sustained in community, yet our focus far too often remains on the acute front end clinical interventions. To effectively shift to addressing addiction as a chronic disorder, we must make the connection to community.
• Greed as a pure profit motive. There are a small percentage of expensive high-end acute care programs that are too busy making money off of acute care residential treatment that they ignore all the evidence behind the need for longer term recovery management. These programs might fly clients into treatment on exotic islands or on both coasts overlooking the ocean. They might have a 5-star chef who serves dishes such as caviar and sushi and include spa treatment. Then, after 28 days, send clients home upon graduation with limited continuous care. Click here to continue reading.



Giftedness and Education: A Brief Introduction for Therapists, School Social Workers and Counselors

By Elton Sanders, BS

September 8, 2026

This is the second post in a series

As stated previously, gifted students have unique challenges that must be met with unique solutions. There are many issues gifted students face in schools, as well as many potential solutions to them. This post is meant to be an introduction for therapists, school social workers and counselors.

Gifted education in the U.S is not standardized, so policies for how gifted education is run vary by state and school district. Individual schools can have their own practices as well. It is important to check all policies that apply to the school the student attends.

Schools with gifted programs often fail to give these services to gifted students, who go unnoticed. As mentioned previously, giftedness is very misunderstood. Most people in the education system have received little training on giftedness—their perceptions of it are based on the popular image of giftedness as high intelligence with no issues.

Referring students for testing or assessment is important. While gifted testing and assessment are often used interchangeably, they are two separate things. Gifted testing refers to tests that are standardized; the same test is given to every recipient. Gifted assessment is a much more in-depth process and gives a more complete view of the child’s profile. It can use many techniques, including multiple tests, interviews with family members, and classroom observation.

While schools can provide free evaluation, it is often worth it to seek additional evaluation outside the school. .This gives the option of other opinions in the evaluation process.

According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), all students must obtain an IEP (Individualized Education Program) to receive special education. To get an IEP, the student must be evaluated and found to have a disability that adversely affects school performance.

(The use of the word disability when referring to giftedness is controversial, but many gifted students do have differences that adversely affect school performance and can benefit from special education.)

A majority of students with IEPs spend most of their time in general classes; with only some of their time spent in special classes and resource rooms. The first IEP meeting is held shortly after the student is found eligible for special education. This meeting will discuss the needs of the student and what the IEP should include to fulfill these needs.

Future meetings will be at least once a year and will focus on the student’s progress. The IEP should be updated to adjust to the student’s changing needs and prepare them for their goals after graduation.

An IEP team consisting of the following people is required to attend every meeting:

A parent or guardian of the student

At least one of the student’s general education teachers

At least one of the student’s special education teachers

A school district representative who has the power to approve services and resources

An expert (typically a school psychologist) who can interpret the student’s evaluation results

A translator or interpreter (if needed)

Schools often suggest IEPs that do not meet the needs of the student. When this happens, it is essential to advocate for the student. Students do not have to agree to plans that do not support them. They and their team are allowed to state their needs, request changes to the IEP, and request additional meetings.

In egregious cases, the family can bring in an advocate, work with an advocacy organization, or seek legal advice.

The student and their family can also bring other people to the meeting, including friends, family members, and experts, including the student's therapist. They can provide additional context for student’s experiences, provide expertise, and give emotional support.

In addition to in-school services, there are a variety of other schooling options that should be considered. These include online school, homeschooling, and specialized schools if deemed more appropriate to meet the student’s needs. While traditional brick and mortar schooling works for some people, it is not the best option for everyone, especially many gifted students.

RESOURCES

https://adayinourshoes.com/printable-list-of-strategies-sdis-for-your-iep-meeting/

Lindsay, R., Rossi, E. B., Smith, B. C., Abaza, N., Renzulli, S., & Burke, M. M. (2026). Exploring the Experiences of Twice-Exceptional Youth With Section 504 Plans in School. Gifted Child Quarterly, 70(2), 139-151. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00169862251378118

https://www.understood.org/en/articles/the-iep-meeting-an-overview

https://www.understood.org/en/podcasts/understood-explains-ieps/how-prepare-iep-meetings-understood-explains-podcast

https://www.understood.org/en/podcasts/understood-explains-ieps/ieps-resolving-iep-disputes

https://www.davidsongifted.org/prospective-families/gifted-testing-and-assessment/

Giftedness: A Brief Introduction

By Elton Sanders, BS

August 26, 2026

Many times, gifted children in schools are often referred to therapists because they are often misunderstood. They are frequently misdiagnosed and not identified gifted. Most teachers receive little to no training on how to work with gifted children. Many therapists overlook the subject of giftedness because it is not in the DSM-5, although it has been deeply studied. This post is meant to be an introduction for therapists, school social workers and counselors.

Intellectual giftedness is commonly understood as above-average intelligence, especially in children. But the name is somewhat misleading, as many experts in the field claim that giftedness is mainly about asynchronous development—by which gifted people experience accelerated development in some areas while being average or underdeveloped in others.

There is great variation within the label giftedness; no two gifted people are the same. It is believed to be caused by differences in the brain, as gifted people have visible differences in brain physiology compared to neurotypicals. These include increased connectivity and enlarged volume in certain regions, including the frontal lobe and temporal lobe. 

https://gro-gifted.org/the-neuroscience-of-giftedness/ 2018

Some characteristics of gifted people include, but are not limited to:

Faster processing of information

Creativity and problem-solving ability

Intense interests in specific areas

Non-linear reasoning

High vocabulary

High sensory sensitivity

Emotional intensity

Strong and early developed sense of justice and morality (I.E. justice sensitivity)

Early developed (and sometimes unusual) sense of humor

Asynchronous development leads to unique challenges which, contrary to popular belief, often persist long into adulthood, though intelligence can lead to these issues going unnoticed.

For example, a gifted person may be highly intelligent but have a slower than average processing speed, causing them to struggle during timed tests. This can lead to an average IQ, leading to the giftedness not being diagnosed.

The individual may understand the material beyond others at their age, but without accommodations (such as increased test taking time) they may not be able to demonstrate their skills. Normative practices are often ineffective and harmful when working with non-normative groups such as gifted people.

Gifted programs in schools typically offer more advanced work than usual for the grade. This can be very helpful for gifted students who are bored by general classes that do not challenge their abilities. However, students may still struggle with the work in these classes, and many educators do not understand giftedness, even those who work in gifted programs.

Many gifted students are instead placed in Special Ed classes. Special Ed placement They can help with some of the challenges associated with giftedness, but many Special Ed classes are not prepared to handle the increased intellectual needs of gifted students. These two options leave many gifted students in a lose-lose situation.

Some gifted individuals are twice-exceptional, or 2e. The term 2e refers to people who have the unique cognitive profile of being gifted and having a learning or developmental disability, such as dyslexia, autism, or ADHD. Asynchrony is even more prevalent in 2e people, and they require a specialized plan to meet their needs.

When evaluating clients, it is important to consider giftedness as a possibility in addition to other forms of neurodivergence. When an individual shows signs of giftedness, consider referring them for a gifted evaluation to a tester who understands or specializes in giftedness.

Because gifted people have varied profiles with extreme strengths and vulnerabilities, professional assessment can be very useful to help them understand themselves and receive help. Testing can reveal a person’s strengths, how their profile has changed throughout their life, and what skills they need to improve to thrive.

RESOURCES

https://gro-gifted.org/the-neuroscience-of-giftedness/

https://www.centerforidentitypotential.com/best-practice-and-evidence-based-practice-not-necessarily-best-for-gifted-learners

https://www.davidsongifted.org/

https://cagifted.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Characteristics-of-Gifted-Children.pdf

https://www.divergentpod.com/blog/ep-80

Therapeutic Filmmaking as an Intervention for Substance Use Disorder

by

Elton Sanders, BS

August 18, 2026

Military service is uniquely traumatic in a variety of ways, yet over half of veterans do not receive mental health treatment (Anderson, 2021). People are often deployed for over a year, during which they are separated from their home and support systems. Reintegration after service comes with many difficulties, including reconnecting with loved ones, finding a job, and potential physical and mental health conditions.

The I Was There (IWT) film workshop is an intervention model created by Benjamin Patton that uses a filmmaking workshop to help veterans cope with trauma and reintegration. It has achieved an attrition rate of only 5%. The program has several sessions led by a mental health provider and a team of professional filmmakers. However, most of the creative freedom is given to the group.

Therapeutic filmmaking is an approach to arts therapy that brings groups of people together to create films. Clients are involved in several aspects of the filmmaking process, including writing, filming, acting, directing, and editing. Through collaboration, participants gain useful skills, connect with others with similar experiences, and create art that expresses difficulties faced by the group. Members do not need filmmaking experience—everyone is taught basic camera skills on the first day. In later sessions, the workshop breaks into groups of 3-4 people. Each group chooses a theme important to all members to create a film. The films are written, acted, shot, and edited over the next few days. Finally, the films are screened before the entire workshop and invited guests.

A major appeal of the workshop is that it grants clients agency—they can choose who they work with, their role in the production, and how much or little they share about their trauma. This agency separates it from other models that believe full exposure of trauma is necessary and do not grant clients this level of agency.  Beth, who was a service member during 9/11 chose not to work with a group of female 9/11 veterans creating a film about the attack. She chose to work with a group covering a different subject; this choice helped her open up about her trauma for the first time in 16 years. She said after the workshop;

“I came to work, to get away from the girls who were in 9/11. I didn’t want to go there. I wanted to work with somebody, that it could   be in there, but on a positive level. I didn’t want to relive the whole day, which was what the other girls were doing. So I joined   someone who had a totally different idea, but putting my input somewhere there, that would be more effective for me. And it was.

 I think a lot of people can benefit from it. Because I am very stubborn and I’m very close-minded to this whole idea of going back,   and re-living any kind of grief. I don’t go there. I don’t touch it. It’s like taboo for me. So for you guys, to be able to help me with it, I   think you can help a lot of other people. And I watched my film over and over, and I don’t have a problem with that.”

Jonathan a veteran and I Was There workshop participant, said

"You can’t have someone with PTSD just sit down and talk openly about his problems, with insight and understanding. No. It’s chaos.   You need the art. You need the distance. You need the music, the puppets, so that you can project yourself onto the character, or the   puppet."

The workshop is a form of group therapy, which is preferred by many veterans. Many participants felt other group members could understand them, as they had been through similar experiences. Filmmaking is very effective for treating trauma because it is multisensory, incorporating sight and sound. Traumatic memories are vivid and multisensorial. Many find that film can convey their traumatic experiences that cannot be expressed through words.

Filmmaking workshops could be useful as an intervention for substance use disorder. They face some of the same challenges as veterans, including substance use, trauma, and difficulties with reintegration. In addition, substance use is also multisensory and difficult to express with words.

Tag words: Veterans, Therapeutic Filmmaking, Substance use disorder, Trauma,

REFERENCES

https://pattonvets.org/

Cohen, J. L., Johnson, J. L., & Orr, P. (Eds.). (2015). Video and filmmaking as psychotherapy: Research and Practice (1st ed.). Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

Drebing, C. E., Mamon, D., Calixte, R. M., et al. (2023). Pilot outcomes of a filmmaking intervention designed to enhance treatment entry and social reintegration of veterans. Psychological Services, 20(3), 585–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000618

Erin Anderson. “Untreated Mental Illness Among Veterans in the United States.” Ballard Brief. November 2021. www.ballardbrief.org

Robertson , B. (2016, March 31). All things connect: The Integration of Mindfulness, Cinema and Psychotherapy. Counseling Today. https://web.archive.org/web/20160928013931/https://ct.counseling.org/2016/03/all-things-connect-the-integration-of-mindfulness-cinema-and-psychotherapy/

Tache-Codreanu, A., David, I., Rotaru, I. A., et al. (2025). Exploring the role of therapeutic filmmaking as an expressive arts intervention in the rehabilitation of adolescents with anxiety or depression: A narrative review. Balneo and PRM Research Journal, 16(Vol 16 No. 3), 851. https://doi.org/10.12680/balneo.2025.851

Tuval-Mashiach R, Patton BW and Drebing C (2018) “When You Make a Movie, and You See Your Story There, You Can Hold It”: Qualitative Exploration of Collaborative Filmmaking as a Therapeutic Tool for Veterans. Front. Psychol. 9:1954. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01954

Psychodrama as a Potential Treatment for Substance Use Disorder

by

Elton Sanders, BS

August 4, 2026

Improv for Clients With Substance Use Disorder

by

Elton Sanders, BS

July 6, 2026