15 JANUARY 2010
NO 1529
Resilience
Resilience is generating intense interest as a concept to guide intervention with children who have experienced adversity or who are identified as vulnerable to poor developmental outcomes. Luthar's (2005) recent review and synthesis of five decades of research on resilience provides a helpful landmark for a shift in emphasis from understanding what resilience is, towards grasping the evidence that already exists and exploring whether it can be put into practice for the benefit of abused and neglected children (Masten & Powell, 2003).
Practitioners working with children are drawing implicitly and explicitly on the concept of resilience, especially in non-statutory and specialist projects (Newman & Blackburn, 2002). Recent practice guidance, based upon a literature review and studies of effective practice, confirmed the value of the concept for work with fostered children (Bostock, 2004) and increasingly `resilience' is being cited as the underpinning principle for practice in a range of child care and child protection settings. A number of guides to intervention based on resilience are now also available (Daniel & Wassell, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c; Gilligan, 1999; Newman, 2004).
Precisely because a resilience led approach depends on a very detailed, individual and specific plan for intervention for each child every plan will necessarily be different. However, the research into factors associated with resilience has led to the development of a number of similar guiding frameworks for intervention via a range of protective factors. Rutter's framework suggests that practice should:
alter or reduce child's exposure to risk
reduce the negative chain reaction of risk exposure • establish and maintain self-esteem and self-efficacy
create opportunities (Rutter, 1987)
Masten's framework suggests that practitioners should aim to:
reduce vulnerability and risk
reduce the number of stressors and pile-up
increase the available resources
foster resilience strings
alter or reduce the child's exposure to risk (Masten, 1994)
And Benard suggests the need for the child to experience:
caring relationships
high expectations
opportunities to participate and contribute (Benard, 2004)
It is also important, as Luthar (2005) points out, to focus on factors that are 'modifiable modifiers', that is, they can be changed rather than being relatively fixed, as is, for example, gender.
Masten and Coatsworth provide an overall framework for intervention by suggesting that prevention and intervention design can be:
a) risk-focused, for example, public-health programmes such as those aimed at preventing low birth weight and projects aimed at reducing the stressors associated with transition between primary and secondary education;
b) resource-focused, for example, adding extra assets for children or improving access to resources, especially when risks are intractable; and
c) process-focused, for example, improving attachment, self-efficacy and self-regulation (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998).
Yates and Masten suggest that the most effective intervention programmes involve all three:
'These multi-faceted paradigms attempt to reduce modifiable risk, strengthen meaningful assets, and recruit core developmental systems to enhance positive adaptational processes within the child, the family and the broader community...' (Yates & Masten, 2004 p. 10)
In one of the few previous studies that explored ways in which resilience is operationalised Barnardo's sent a postal questionnaire to 140 education, health and social work professionals in child and family support services in Scotland and received 71 returns (Newman & Blackburn, 2002). In response to a question that asked which of the four approaches identified by Rutter were being used 39 projects identified – 'reduce exposure to risk'; 52 – reduce chance of chain reaction'; 63 – 'increasing the child's self esteem' and 60 – 'create opportunities for growth'. The authors concluded that the data 'indicates that many of the respondents did employ strategies to promote resilience'.
Overall, despite an increasing emphasis on the concept of resilience in policy and practice relating to vulnerable children and their families little is known about how it is actually being employed in child and family services. This paper presents the findings from a study in the UK and Australia that examined how the concept of resilience is operationalised in practice with vulnerable, abused or neglected children to answer the following research question:
When an organisation has the explicit aim of nurturing resilience in vulnerable children:
how do practitioners translate that aim into practice; and
how congruent is the described practice with the principles indicated by the existing literature on resilience?
The full study examined four main themes:
understandings of resilience
resilience-based practice
measuring resilience and outcomes
strengths and weaknesses of the concept
In this paper we will present the findings on resilience-based practice in particular.
BRIGID DANIEL, SHARON VINCENT, EDWINA FARRALL AND FIONA ARNEY
Danile, B.; Vincent, S.; Farrall, E. and Arney, F.
(2009). How is the Concept of Resilience Operationalised in Practice
with Vulnerable Children? International Journal of Child and Family
Welfare, 12, 1. pp. 2-4.
REFERENCES
Benard, B. (2004). Resiliency: What Have We Learned? San Francisco: WestEd.
Bostock, L. (2004). Promoting Resilience in Fostered Children and Young People: Resource Guide No. 4. London: Social Care Institute of Excellence.
Daniel, B., & Wassell, S. (2002a). Adolescence: Assessing and Promoting Resilience in Vulnerable Children III. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Daniel, B., & Wassell, S. (2002b). The Early Years: Assessing and Promoting Resilience in Vulnerable Children I. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Daniel, B., & Wassell, S. (2002c). The School Years: Assessing and Promoting Resilience in Vulnerable Children II. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Gilligan, R. (1999). Enhancing the resilience of children and young people in public care by mentoring their talents and interests. Child and Family Social Work, 4, 3. pp. 187-196.
Luthar, S. (2005). Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across five decades. In D. Cicchetti & D.J. Cohen (Eds.), Development Psychopathology: Risk, Disorder and Adaptation (2nd ed., Vol. 3). New York: Wiley.
Masten, A. (1994). Resilience in individual development. In M.C. Wang & E.W. Gordon (Eds.), Educational Resilience in Inner-City America. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Masten, A.S., & Coatsworth, J.D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments. American Psychologist, 53, 2. pp. 205-220.
Masten, A.S., & Powell, J.L. (2003). A resilience framework for research, policy and practice. In S.S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and Vulnerability: Adaptation in the Context of Childhood Adversities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Newman, T. (2004). What Works in Building Resilience. London: Barnardo's.
Newman, T., & Blackburn, S. (2002). Transitions in the Lives of Children and Young People: Resilience Factors. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department.
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57. pp.316-331.
Yates, T.M., & Masten, A. (2004). Prologue: the promise of resilience research for practice and policy. In T. Newman (Ed.), What Works in Building Resilience? Barkingside: Barnardo's.
