Promoting Resilience in Children:

Towards a Positive Framework for Child Care Practice

Brigid Daniel
The term resilience is of course not new and people have been using it in many ways
for many years, but there does recently appear to have been a massive surge of
interest in specifically whether the ideas can be exploited to enhance child care and
protection practice. This has been paralleled, and complemented, by the similar surge
of interest in strength-based approaches: a core theme that runs through this
conference. Child care and protection practice has been characterised by its sharp
focus on the assessment of, and reduction of risk. Whilst this is important many
practitioners would welcome a framework for intervention that provides a balancing
positive focus. A resilience-led perspective to practice is, as Gilligan (Gilligan, 2000)
states both optimistic and pragmatic. So, there is obviously a sense that it could
potentially offer an exciting avenue for practice development. Does it represent blue
skies thinking? Well, perhaps, but I also think it is important that we keep our feet on
the ground.
Therefore, in this presentation I am first going to look at what is actually meant by
resilience, and then when we emerge from that definitional swamp I shall present a
pragmatic model for understanding resilience that was developed along with my
colleague Sally Wassell.
I shall then spend some time looking at the potential pitfalls of the uncritical use of
resilience. This is because I have noticed that, while the idea is being taken up by
practitioners, there has been a bit of a backlash against the concept in the academic
arena. This has happened with other concepts and I think it is due to a tendency in
pressured practice situations to avoid the complexities of a concept in case they
muddy the water. Ideas can be reduced to simple ideologies. Consider, for example,
the way that 'permanency' became a mantra for practice that tended to override
consideration of individual need and difference. So, we must not simply grasp at a
concept and reduce it to beguiling simplicity. The children we encounter in practice
do not have simple lives!
Finally I shall present a more detailed framework for the assessment of, and
intervention with, children who have experienced abuse and neglect. Sally and I owe
a huge intellectual debt to Robbie Gilligan, (Trinity College, Dublin) who has
contributed greatly to the development of resilience as a concept for practitioners
(Gilligan, 1997; Gilligan, 1999). I would also like to acknowledge the previous and
current funding from the Scottish Executive that has helped us to develop these ideas.
Many of you will find many of these ideas familiar and many of you will already be
using them in your practice. What I suggest here is that the concept can provide us
with a theoretical basis to underpin practice with children.

DefinitionsofResilience
Resilienceiscertainlynotaconceptthatischaracterisedbythesparklingclaritygiven
byblueskies.Indeed,Ithinkthattryingtodefineresilienceislikelookingforsmoke
signalsonafoggyday.Insomewaystheconceptisverysimpleandis highlighted by
the main theme of this conference:
'Many voices, many choices'
This theme absolutely captures the importance of recognising that each child is an
individual and that therefore we should never make assumptions about how any child
will react to any specific circumstances. And put in very simple terms a resilient child
is one who turns out to be emotionally healthy despite having experienced the kind of
adversity and trauma more normally associated with developmental problems.
ThissimpleconceptiscapturedintheoftquoteddefinitionbyFonagyet.al(Fonagy,
Steele,Steele,Higgitt,&Target,1994):
Normal development under difficult conditions.
However, this definition begs a number of questions, not least what is normal? The
literature variesintheextenttowhichitfocuses(likeFonagy)on:
goodoutcomesinthefaceofadversityand
themechanismsorprocessesthatleadtotheoutcome.
Gilligan's(Gilligan,1997)definitionbeginstodescribetheprocessesinvolvedin
resilience:
.qualities which cushion a vulnerable child from the worst effects of
adversity in whatever form it takes and which may help a child or young
person to cope, survive and even thrive in the face of great hurt and
disadvantage.
For me it is the word 'thrive' that is key here. Masten et. al 1990 (Masten, Best, &
Garmezy, 1990) also focus on the process that enables good outcomes:
Resilience refers to the process of, capacity for, or outcome of successful
adaptation despite challenging or threatening circumstances.
ForarecentreviewcarriedoutonthebehalfoftheScottishExecutivebyBarnardos
NewmanandBlackburn(Newman&Blackburn,2002)summarisedsomeofthe
processissues:
Resilientchildrenarebetterequippedtoresiststressandadversity,copewith
changeanduncertainty,andtorecoverfasterandmorecompletelyfrom
traumaticeventsorepisodes.
Sagy and Dotan (Sagy & Dotan, 2001), point out that although resilience may be
defined as having the ability to adjust successfully, to function positively, or to feel
competent even though one is at serious risk, it is often measured by the absence of
psychopathology. In other words, rather than trying to capture the positive capacity of
adjustment, we often merely measure the absence of problems. From their study of
children who had been maltreated they concluded that it was important to measure a
child's perceived competence. Gillian Schofield (Schofield, 2001) describes this
adaptability very well in an article about attachment and resilience. She explains that
resilience refers to the capacity to adapt internally, and externally. For example if a
resilient child has a setback at school by failing an essay he or she is able to reflect on

it and see it as a temporary setback (internal) and also seek help with the next essay
(external). In summary, therefore:
As an outcome resilience refers to relative mental well-being in the face of
adversity and risk of poor mental well-being.
As a process it refers to the adaptive processes that enable a person to make
use of internal and external resources to adjust to, and cope with, adversity.
These definitions provide us with a starting point, but I would certainly not
advocate that we abandon our attention to the problems that children face and
the risks that they encounter. To be helpful for practitioners in child care and
protection resilience needs to be built into a framework for assessment that
incorporates the traditional focus on problems and risk.
Model for Understanding
So I will now present a very simple model that we know that practitioners find useful.
In building up a model we can first look extrinsic factors that impact on a child, and
these can be located on a dimension as shown.

Adversity <----> Protective factors

Adversity includes factors such as abuse and neglect, poverty and bullying. Protective
factors include good school experiences, presence of important adults, access to
community resources and so on. From a range of research, and in particular the
seminal work by Emmy Werner (Werner & Smith, 1992), based on her longitudinal
studies in Hawaii, we can draw out three key protective factors:
1. At least one secure attachment relationship.
2. Access to wider supports such as extended family and friends.
3. Positive nursery, school and or community experiences.
In further building up the framework we can look at the at the intrinsic qualities
of an individual that can also be located on a dimension.

Vulnerability <------> Resilience

Vulnerability is associated with factors such as a baby having a 'difficult'
temperament, and with the residual effects of adversity such as feelings of
unresolved grief. The three key intrinsic factors associated with resilience are:
1. A sense of security, whereby the child feels a sense of belonging and being loved.
2. Good self-esteem, that is an internal sense of worth and competence.
3. A sense of self-efficacy, that is, a sense of mastery and control, along with an
accurate understanding of personal strengths and limitations (Gilligan, 1997).
Sense of security
The concept of resilience is compatible with attachment theory, which stresses the
importance of relationships in the building of childrens sense of themselves and of
themselves in relation to others and in relation to the world. In the context of
resilience, here, I am referring to the internal feelings that a child has. It is not
3

sufficient for there to be an adult who declares love for the child, resilience is
associated with feeling loved. This sense of security is built up on the basis of the
child's experience of the significant people in their lives and whether they are
dependable and accessible.
Self-esteem
You will all be familiar with self-esteem, it has become the touchstone for so many
programmes for work with children. It is associated with achievement in the things
that matter to you and what you think other people think of you. I want to introduce a
note of caution here as I think that self-esteem is a more complex concept than is
often recognised. Crucially it is essential that we recognise the interpersonal aspects
of self-esteem. True self-esteem is not an 'I'm alright Jack' mentality. Feeling good
about oneself has to be complemented by appreciating the worth of others (and I shall
return to this theme later).
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy (a concept from attribution theory) is concerned with the extent that we
have an accurate knowledge of our own limits and strengths, an accurate
understanding of what things we can influence and what we cant and how to have
some control over events. So, you can have two children who fail a maths test, one
may say well the test was hard, but perhaps I didnt revise enough, next time Ill try
harder. The other may say, everyone else did all right, I am useless at maths, there is
nothing I can do about it. There are times when it is healthy to recognise that you
cannot change the events that have occurred, but you can change the way you allow
them to impact on you. On the other hand, there are many ways in which children
with good self-efficacy can make choices that change the direction of their lives, and
some of the most important can be choices about making the most of educational
opportunities.
The International Resilience Project has neatly translated these concepts into three
statements that resilient people can say (Grotberg, 1997):
I HAVE.people I trust and love (security)
I AM..a loveable person (self-esteem)
I CANfind ways to solve problems (self-efficacy)
Putting the dimensions together
These dimensions can be put together to give us a grid to help make sense of a child's
current circumstances.

Adversity

Vulnerability <------> Resilience

Protective factors
Of course these extrinsic and intrinsic dimensions are interactive. As Rutter (Rutter,
1985) stresses, resilience is a dynamic concept that refers to the interaction between
stresses and adversity and the buffering factors within the child and their
environment. The existence of a secure attachment relationship, which is an extrinsic
factor, will lead to a sense of secure base, an intrinsic characteristic. An early
experience of abuse (extrinsic) may lead to feelings of low self-esteem (intrinsic).
If we use the grid flexibly and see it as dynamic it can help us to understand childrens
responses and help us to shape intervention. Put together the model provides a starting
point for assessment and intervention. This, I think, does represent a breakthrough for
practice. It enables practitioners to look at past and present events and to make a
balanced assessment of resilience and strengths as well as problems and risks.
Potential Pitfalls of Uncritical Use of Resilience
But, as I cautioned at the beginning, there is always the danger that concepts can run
away with themselves. Children look to us to protect and nurture them. And by us, I
mean all of us, not only parents. And when we, as professionals, intervene in the lives
of children we have a huge responsibility to base our interventions on the best
evidence that we have. Therefore, we must continually revisit, and question, our
theory base. One of things that most disturbed me about your powerful film Rabbit
Proof Fence was the utter certainty of the character played by Kenneth Branagh that
he was doing the right thing in removing children from their Aboriginal families. His
lantern show was so like a powerpoint presentation it chilled me. We must all beware
of such un questioning certainty.
So, with that in mind I will present some of the potential pitfalls of the concept. The
capacity for people to survive and overcome great odds has the tendency to be overromanticized. Triumph over adversity is the theme of many current novels and is in
danger of becoming clichd. There is a wonderful British novel Where did it all go
right? in which Andrew Collins (Collins, 2003) writes a good antidote to some of
these books by describing his happy childhood with two loving and kind parents. He
wonders whether he is somehow lacking because he did not have a miserable
childhood! Taken to extremes the notion can be used to suggest that adversity from
social disadvantage can be simply overcome by supreme individual effort. This idea
has been developed by Rigsby (Rigsby, 1994) who has described the
'Americanization' of resilience exemplified by a number of assumptions, including
that everyone can and should strive to get ahead and that disadvantages that affect
chances are individual and can be overcome with individual effort. To counteract this
tendency, therefore, we need to:
incorporate the concept of community development and strategies and policies for
inclusion and

 carefully define what we mean by resilience and examine cultural assumptions and
emphasise pro-social and inter-dependent elements.
Another pitfall comes from making assumptions such as the common view that
children bounce back from difficulties. Some children do, but it is too trite to assume
it will always be the case and we must be very careful not to negate children's
experiences of hurt and distress. This is related to another assumption that can be
made about children who appear to be coping well. It is dangerous to make the
assumption that just because a child appears to be coping well they are not in fact
suffering internal distress and developing unhelpful coping strategies and defences.
Luthar carried out some important research in this area that showed that some
adolescents who appeared to be coping well showed, when carefully assessed, some
signs of depression and anxiety (Luthar, 1991). So, the important message is that we
must not make assumptions that a child is coping and we certainly should not assume
that children are, or indeed, should be resilient.
Another set of pitfalls relate to the role of research and research of interpretation.
Gore and Eckenrode (Gore & Eckenrode, 1994) point out that it is researchers who
define events as stressful. They suggest that it is also important to listen to people's
own accounts as one person's adversity may be another's challenge. Masten and
Coatsworth (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998) also point to the difficulties of using
research to guide intervention. The example they give is the finding that there is an
association between self-esteem and competence. If it is assumed that self-esteem
therefore causes competence and intervention is based only on boosting esteem then it
is possible to end up with children 'who misbehave but think highly of themselves'.
Instead it may be more effective to boost competence which will then positively affect
self-esteem.
The final issue takes us back to the definitional swamp. Is 'resilience' merely a
complicated way of describing ordinary child development? As Mastenand
Coatsworthpointout:
Resilient children do not appear to possess mysterious or unique qualities;
rather, they have retained or secured important resources representing
basic protective systems in human development (Masten & Coatsworth,
1998, p.212).
If it is no more that normal development, why has it taken off now as a concept for
practice? I suggest that it is because it enhances our understanding of child
development. Studies of child development have traditionally been preoccupied with
setting out norms and stages of development under optimal conditions, with
descriptions of what can go wrong if these optimal conditions are not met. But
practitioners have often struggled to apply much of that developmental literature to
children in difficulties because, as I said, these children have complicated lives.
Studies of resilience, though, help us to capture the essence of what intervention is
for, that is to equip children with what they need to thrive despite the problems they
have had. If we can capitalise on that knowledge then we have a clear basis for
intervention.
Well designed, accurately targeted and efficiently delivered social care
services can make a real difference to children born into adverse
conditions. By attempting to replicate the factors that enable some
6

children to resist or recover from early adversity, we can extend this

protection to a wider population of children. (Newman & Blackburn,
2002, p.72))

Framework for Assessment and Intervention

I will give a short overview of the next stage of our framework that aims to provide a
structured approach to the assessment of potential areas of resilience and protective
factors, and offers a basis for the planning of intervention (Daniel & Wassell, 2002a,
2002b, 2002c). The model represented by the grid suggests that we need to:
identify and support the protective factors in the child's human environment and
nurture the child's adaptive ability and capacity to exploit these factors, that is
nurture their resilience.
Our framework is set within an ecological framework that encourages assessment of:
dispositional and temperamental attributes
family or substitute family and attachment relationships and
community and extra-familial supports.
It incorporates the factors identified in the literature as associated with resilience and
is built around six domains of a childs life and:
secure base
education
friendships
talents and interests
positive values
social competencies.
Secure base
There is a clear association between the presence of a secure attachment relationship
and resilience in the face of adversity. Child care practitioners are very familiar with
the concept of attachment and therefore I will not talk in great detail about the
importance of a secure base. We know that insecure internal working models of
attachment can change in the context of the formation of new, more secure
relationships. When it is not immediately possible to enable attachment to one person,
a network of attachment figures can be created around the child. It is essential that
attention is paid to ensuring that a child feels secure, however, it is equally important
that attention to issues of attachment do not eclipse other domains of a child's life.
Education
The evidence that good educational experience is associated with better outcomes is
vast. We use education here in its broadest sense to refer to all aspects of education.
Social workers in the past could be accused of not paying sufficient attention to the
educational needs of children, I think that is now changing. Whatever else is going on
in a child's life attention to their intellectual development cannot be suspended. All

children are born with a natural curiosity about the social and material world.
Nurturing resilience is therefore about nurturing children's cognitive development,
helping them to retain the enquiring mind and eagerness to make sense of things that
all children are born with, but that is blunted in many who experience abuse or
neglect. For some children it is the demands of natural curiosity that have lead to them
being assaulted by parents. To promote educational experiences we can think about:
school as a place that can offer security
teachers as people who can be important sources of support to children and
education as a process that can help children develop self-esteem and self-efficacy.
Friendships
Resilience is associated with having generally positive peer relationships, and,
specifically, good friendships. Having friends can help buffer the effects of stress,
prevent stress, mediate stress and provide information to deal with stress. Friends also
offer fun and companionship: children enjoy activities much more if they are carried
out with friends rather than non-friends. It is important to be able to distinguish
associates from friends. For some children , especially adolescents, friendships can be
unhelpful if they lead them into trouble.
It is important to take account of a child's level of maturity. Younger children tend to
make friends with whoever is near, as they get older children become more choosy
and develop friendships on the basis of mutual interests. But some adolescents who
have experienced abuse and neglect may have immature friendship skills.
Practitioners need to find ways of placing children in proximity with children without
difficulties, in local mainstream clubs and activities.
Some children may not understand the etiquette of shared confidences, they may have
difficult joining games and so on. But these are skills that can be taught. For example
role play, cartoons, drawings and so on can be used to encourage a child to rehearse
and practice skills such as joining a group, managing teasing, playing cooperatively
and so on. Some children's friendships may be limited because they cannot take their
friends home, but perhaps a grandparent or other relative would be happy to provide a
base for friends to visit.
Talents and Interests
As shown earlier, self-esteem is one of the fundamental building blocks of resilience.
It tends to be based in the balance between what children would like to be and what
they think they actually are. Talents and interests are not exactly the same, of course,
some children have a talent in something that does not greatly interest them. But if
children have the opportunity to take part in activities they enjoy, and if their talents
are recognised and celebrated, outcomes for them are likely to be improved. Some
abused and neglected children have such low self-esteem and self-efficacy that they
are unwilling to try anything and practitioners have to find imaginative ways to
introduce them to a range of activities. Foster carers are often very good at this, the
only drawback that I have observed is that often when children move from placement
to placement they are unable to sustain activities that interest them. Activities are
more likely to be effective if they are part of the child's natural environment. Rather
than using resources to set up special activities for troubled children it may be more

effective to use the resources to support mainstream clubs to take in children in

difficulty.
Positive Values
It is my belief that this is one of the key domains and that this area has, to some
extent, been neglected in child care and practice. This may be because practitioners
can understand the reasons why a child is behaving aggressively or unkindly towards
other people. But it is crucial to appreciate that efforts to encourage kindness and
helpfulness do not just make life more pleasant, but have been demonstrated to be
linked with better long-term outcomes for children.
To behave in a prosocial way a child needs to have an understanding that other people
have feelings, feel empathy for those feelings, have the ability to act kindly towards
others and be able to inhibit negative actions. The parent or carer is more effective if
their messages about prosocial behaviour contain an emotional element and they can
show that unkindness to others upsets them. This can be difficult to reproduce in care
settings, but attempts must be made to create an ethos of mutual care. Any signs of
cruelty, unkindness or hurting of other children or adults should be stopped. Parents
and carers can be encouraged to recognise, accept and praise any verbal offers of help
or apparent attempts to help. With older children it is possible to help the development
of moral reasoning by posing moral dilemmas for groups to discuss.
Social Competencies
Resilience is associated with possessing the skills of self-regulation, including control
of attention, impulses, emotions and behaviour. Social competence is underpinned by
the development of autonomy as the child learns inter-dependence. Children need to
learn the conventions of their social context. I do not mean to suggest that children
should be forced into conformist moulds. Individuality and 'sparkiness' can be valued.
However, there is no doubt that it is to a child's severe disadvantage if they are unable
to control their behaviour, especially as social and behavioural problems can be
associated with difficulties with peer relationships and with schooling and can lead to
isolation and exclusion from social activities. There is tremendous scope for
intervention here. Children can learn to control their behaviour, and many
programmes exist to support children in being able to stop and think before acting.
Prompt intervention with young children who show antisocial behaviour is especially
helpful.
Intervention
This framework provides a basis for assessment and planning of intervention.
Although there is a considerable amount of research about the factors associated with
resilience, there is very little systematic research into strategies aimed at intervening
to boost a childs resilience in the face of adversity. However principles to underpin
intervention have been identified by Rutter (Rutter, 1985):
Reduce the impact of risk.
Reduce the likelihood of negative chain reactions.
Promote self-esteem and self-efficacy.
9

 Open up positive opportunities.

Encourage positive cognitive processing of negative experiences.
Howe et. al (Howe, Brandon, Hinings, & Schofield, 1999) provide good examples of
each of these principles in action:
parent support and conflict resolution can be used to improve a damaging
parenting environment
video techniques can be used to help a parent modify their interactions with a
child and so prevent a spiral into a more difficult relationship
warm relationships and achievements can be fostered
turning points can be found in school opportunities and in foster care and
children can be encouraged to step back from events and think about them in a
different way.
Case study
I recently had a conversation with a foster carer who has been using deliberate
strategies informed by a resilience-based framework with an eight year old girl, we'll
call her Anne, with mild learning difficulties and ADHD for which she takes
medication. Anne's behaviour was very poor at school. The carer attempted to build
up the girl's building blocks of resilience by looking to her having an interest and a
responsibility. Anne was attending the Girl's Brigade, but her attendance had been
contingent upon behaving well at school. The carer decided to sever that link and
encourage attendance, including on days when Anne herself did not feel like
attending. Anne subsequently won a prize at the club for attendance. Anne is not
allowed to wear a skirt to school because she uses it in a sexually aggressive way. A
skirt was part of the Brigade uniform and the carer decided to let her wear it to the
club, Anne subsequently won extra points at the club for her uniform.
To enable her to take more responsibility the carer acquired a rabbit for Anne to care
for. And she managed to find a rabbit that had had tooth problems and therefore had
no big teeth to bite Anne with, this meant that she could learn how to hold the rabbit
carefully without the danger of a bite! She has to feed the rabbit every day, speak to it
daily, clean it weekly, close the cover when it rains and generally look after it.
Finally the carer has encouraged Anne to learn how to make her own drinks and how
to prepare her own breakfast on a Saturday.
These have all been very small things that the carer herself said were obvious in many
ways, but she had to let go of her over-protective feelings to an extent to allow them.
The key thing for her was moving from a language of problem and pathology to one
of positives. It gave her more confidence in the difference that she could make as a
carer.
Conclusion
In conclusion, therefore, I concede that there are issues of definition and measurement
of resilience, but I think that it is possible to transcend these problems by looking at
ways to apply the concept to practice. With colleagues in Scotland I have been
developing a research project that is exploring the value of resilience as a concept for
practice in statutory social work. It has involved endless discussion about what we are
10

measuring and how we can measure it. At one point I felt that I was being sucked into
a vortex of ever-receding circles of definition. I was pulled from the swamp by the
psychologist on the team who reminded me of the marvellous phrase 'face validity'.
Face validity simply means that something is valid if it makes sense to people this
echoed a comment from a foster carer who, on hearing about the concept remarked,
'It's just common sense isn't it?' (Daniel, Wassell, & Gilligan, 1999). And of course in
many ways it is, it is what good foster carers, youth workers, social workers, teachers
and community workers have been doing for years. But the concept offers a
theoretical basis for much of that 'common sense' work. Resilience brings together
aspects of developmental theory and existing practice wisdom and provides a
coherent framework for practice that is purposeful and positive.

Collins, A. (2003). Where Did it All Go Right? London: Ebury Press.

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.
Daniel, B., Wassell, S., & Gilligan, R. (1999). Its just common sense isnt it?:
Exploring ways
of putting the theory of resilience into action. Adoption and Fostering, 23(3), 6-15.
Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Higgitt, A., & Target, M. (1994). The Emanuel
Miller Memorial Lecture 1992: The theory and practice of resilience. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(2), 231-257.
Gilligan, R. (1997). Beyond permanence? The importance of resilience in child
placement practice and planning. Adoption and Fostering, 21(1), 12-20.
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), 187-196.
Gilligan, R. (2000). Men as foster carers. A neglected resource? Adoption and
Fostering, 24(2), 1-7.
Gore, S., & Eckenrode, J. (1994). Context and process in research on risk and
resilience. In R. J. Haggerty & L. R. Sherrod & N. Garmezy & M. Rutter
(Eds.), Stress, Risk and Resilience in Children and Adolescents: Processes,
Mechanisms, and Interventions. Canbridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grotberg, E. (1997). The international resilience project. In M. John (Ed.), A Charge
Against Society: The Child's Right to Protection. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Howe, D., Brandon, M., Hinings, D., & Schofield, G. (1999). Attachment Theory,
Child Maltreatment and Family Support. London: MacMillan Press.
Luthar, S. S. (1991). Vulnerability and resilience: a study of high-risk adolescents.
Child Development, 62, 600-612.

11

Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development:
Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity.
Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425-444.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in
favorable and unfavorable environments. American Psychologist, 53(2), 205220.
Newman, T., & Blackburn, S. (2002). Transitions in the Lives of Children and Young
People: Resilience Factors. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education
Department.
Rigsby, L. C. (1994). The Americanization of resilience: deconstructing research
practice. In M. C. Wang & E. W. Gordons (Eds.), Educational Resilience in
Inner-City America: Challenges and Prospects. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance
to psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598-611.
Sagy, S., & Dotan, N. (2001). Coping resources of maltreated children in the family: a
salutogenic approach. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25, 1463-1480.
Schofield, G. (2001). Resilience and family placement: A lifespan perspective.
Adoption and Fostering, 25(3), 6-19.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the Odds: High Risk Children from
Birth to Adulthood. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

12