Microsoft Word - Thomas_SW knowledge and use of strengths_Final


_________________ 
Madhavappallil Thomas, Ph.D., is Associate Professor and Barbara Reifel, MSW, LCSW, is a Lecturer, both in the 
Department of Social Work, California State University, Bakersfield. 
 
Copyright © 2010 Advances in Social Work Vol. 11 No. 1 (Spring 2010), 17-32 

Child Welfare Workers’ Knowledge and Use of a Resilience Approach in 
Out-of-Home Care 

Madhavappallil Thomas 
Barbara Reifel 

Abstract: This paper examines child welfare workers’ use of resilience-based knowledge 
and intervention in a public child welfare system in a county in California. The data for 
the study were collected from child welfare workers who worked with out-of-home care 
children (n= 102). Descriptive analysis including chi-square tests was carried out. 
Findings show that a significant majority of child welfare workers are able to correctly 
identify risk and protective factors that are central to the concept of resilience. Although 
a significant majority recognizes the importance of using a resilience-based approach, 
most workers without a degree in social work are not familiar with it and are not 
currently using it in their practice. In terms of familiarity with and in the use of 
resilience-based assessment and interventions, significant differences were found to exist 
between workers with degrees in social work and workers without degrees in social work. 
Implications for social work education, agency training, and practice in child welfare are 
discussed.  

Key Words: Child welfare, resilience-informed intervention, risk factors, protective 
factors, out-of-home care services.  

INTRODUCTION 
Out-of-home care services have become the most widely used intervention with 

abused, neglected and abandoned children. It is, therefore, extremely important that the 
benefits of out-of-home care be optimized. Knowledge of resilience-based assessment 
and intervention can aid child welfare workers in effectively working with the families of 
children who enter and reenter foster care. An in-depth understanding of a resilience-
based approach will help reduce the risk factors and enhance the protective factors in the 
life of the child in out-of-home care. Such an approach has the potential to enhance 
prevention and provide growth-promoting opportunities, lead to the development of 
resilience-based assessment, intervention, and case management, and promote more 
positive outcomes.  

Researchers have identified several factors, such as having multiple placements, 
being an older child, having an insecure attachment to parents, living in poverty, having 
behavior problems or special needs, and having a brief stay in an out-of-home placement, 
as “hazards” or risks, which make children more likely to re-enter out-of-home care after 
they have been reunified with their families (Courtney, 1995; Davis, Sandsverk, Newton, 
& Ganger, 1996; Festinger, 1996; Fraser, Walton, Lewis, Pecora, & Walton, 1996; 
George & Wulczyn, 1990; Jones, 1998; Palmer, 1996; Wells & Guo, 1999). Likewise, a 
number of resilience or protective factors, such as having a sense of being loved, a 
positive ethnic identity, family flexibility, and attendance at good schools, are known to 



Thomas, Reifel/CHILD WELFARE WORKERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF RESILIENCE                                   18 

help shield vulnerable children from high-risk situations (Conger & Conger, 2002; 
Douglass, 1996; Fergusson & Lynskey, 1996; Henry, 1999; Miller & MacIntosh, 1999; 
Laframbose, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993; Palmer, 1996; Patterson, 2002; Smokowski, 
1998; Werner & Smith, 1982). Child welfare workers who are aware of these risk and 
protective factors should be better able to develop interventions to enhance resilience and 
minimize risk than child welfare workers who have limited knowledge and skills in using 
this perspective. It is therefore important to examine child welfare workers’ level of such 
skills and knowledge in order to address any deficiencies.  

Against this backdrop, the study examines the extent to which child welfare workers 
understand and use resilience-based knowledge and skills in working with children in 
foster care and whether child welfare workers with a degree in social work differ 
significantly from workers without social work training in their understanding and use of 
resilience based assessment and intervention.  

Resilience as a Construct 

Resilience as a concept emerged in the 1970s and represented a paradigm shift from 
psychopathology to the identification of protective and risk factors, which differentiate 
resilient individuals from non-resilient individuals (Anthony, 1987). Recent literature 
indicates that researchers have operationalized the construct of resilience as both a 
process and an attribute or trait. Generally defined, resilience refers to “manifested 
competence in the context of significant challenges to adaptation” (Masten & 
Coatsworth, 1998, p. 206). It has been viewed as interactional in nature and defined as a 
“dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the context of significant 
adversity” (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000, p. 543). In contrast, others consider 
resilience to be an attribute or trait of the individual. Viewed from this perspective, it is 
the ability to maintain adaptive functioning in the presence of risk factors without 
experiencing serious long-term harmful effects largely due to characteristics of the 
resilient individual (Nash & Bowen, 1999).  

Luthar et al. (2000) argue that the terms resilience, resiliency, and the concepts they 
represent must be differentiated. They describe resilience as most closely related to a 
“dynamic process” through interaction between the person and their environment at 
various levels. Resiliency, on the other hand, represents the construct as a trait or 
characteristic, which is not as amenable to intervention or change. In making the choice 
to use only the term resilience and the meaning ascribed to this term by Luthar et al. 
(2000), the authors believe the appropriate emphasis is given to the aspects of this 
construct which are most amenable to change and avoid any sense of “blaming the 
victim” for having what might be considered by some as “low resiliency.” For the 
authors, the study of “resilience” as opposed to “resiliency” leads to prioritization of the 
search for effective ways to decrease risk factors and increase protective factors in order 
to enhance the resilience. Gilligan (2004) has also affirmed this distinction by indicating 
acceptance of the definition of resilience as a dynamic process and promoting this 
definition as the most useful for related conceptualizations and studies on the topic. 



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2010, 11(1)  19  
 

Although strengths and resilience have often been used interchangeably in the 
literature, Goldstein (1997) sees resilience as the attribute that epitomizes and 
operationalizes the conceptual framework of the strengths perspective. The strengths 
perspective emphasizes the resources, assets, potentials, and capabilities of individuals, 
groups, families, and communities (Saleebey, 1997). This approach also marks a 
paradigmatic shift from the typical human service perspective from a focus on pathology 
and deficits to a strengths perspective which asks what is right. The strengths perspective 
emphasizes such concepts as empowerment, dialogue, and collaboration.  

Based on a review of the literature, it is logical to surmise that the two concepts—
resilience and the strengths-based perspective—are closely linked and quite 
complementary. However, there is an important distinction between the two concepts. 
Resilience is a dynamic process which exists in the interaction between clients and their 
environments, whereas the strengths perspective describes the helping professional’s 
positive framework which enhances the ability to identify and apply resilience-informed 
assessments and interventions in practice. Unless the client is viewed from a strengths-
based perspective, the worker is likely to miss the resilience factors associated with a 
particular client and his or her environment and thus be less able to build on them. 

Literature Review  

No research appears to have been published on the subject of child welfare workers’ 
attitudes toward resilience or knowledge concerning resilience. This is also true regarding 
child welfare workers’ application of resilience-informed assessment, interventions, 
and/or case management in practice settings. Several major databases were queried for 
this review (i.e., Academic Search Elite, ERIC, PsychArticles, PsychINFO, Sociological 
Abstracts, Social Sciences Citation Index, Social Service Abstracts, and Social Work 
Abstracts). Results indicate that there have been many studies involving resilience in the 
social work literature but none of the authors could locate any investigations of child 
welfare workers’ attitudes toward resilience, knowledge of resilience, or actual use of 
resilience in social work practice contexts.  

Social work researchers have made a convincing case for the utility and effectiveness 
of resilience as an organizing framework for research in social work (Fraser & Richman, 
1999; Gilgun, 1996). As a result, an increasing number of social work researchers have 
used resilience as the overarching construct that guides studies in a wide variety of 
practice arenas (Coombes & Anderson, 2000; Dillon, Liem, & Gore, 2003; Early & 
Vonk, 2001; Flynn, Ghazal, Legault, Vandermeulen, & Petrick, 2004; Fraser & Richman, 
1999; Gilgun, Keskinen, Marti, & Rice, 1999; Greene, 2002; Johnson et al., 1998; 
Kaplan, Turner, Norman, & Stillson, 1996; Little, Axford, & Morpeth, 2004; Nash & 
Bowen, 1999; Freedman, 2004; Van Breda, 1999). For instance, Early and Vonk (2001) 
use resilience and related concepts (protective and risk factors) to frame a review of 
several effectiveness studies concerning the practice of school social workers. In 
addition, compilations of research on resilience applied to many topics of great interest to 
social workers are available (Fraser & Richman, 1999), most notably, two recent books 
which include the works of several authors (Fraser, 2004; Greene, 2002).  



Thomas, Reifel/CHILD WELFARE WORKERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF RESILIENCE                                   20 

Many articles reflect the state of the research as skewed more toward the 
identification of risk factors than protective factors (Little, et. al., 2004). Fraser and 
Richman (1999) supply a reason for this imbalance, when they point out that research on 
resilience seems to indicate risk may be “more potent than protection” when high levels 
of risk are encountered. Though this may be the case, notable recent efforts are being 
made to present a more balanced approach with empirical findings concerning applicable 
protective factors listed simultaneously with risk factors (Corcoran & Nichols-Casebolt, 
2004; Fraser & Galinsky, 2004; Thomas, Chenot, & Reifel, 2005: Thomlinson, 2004). 
Corcoran and Nichols-Casebolt (2004) have outlined the utility of resilience for 
assessment, goal formulation, and intervention planning based on empirical evidence. 
Their work is very important in light of the present study. Finally, there have also been 
studies concerning the resilience of social workers in various practice arenas (Egan, 
1993; Horwitz, 1998). 

However, many child welfare workers do not appear to have much familiarity with 
the concept of resilience or how it might be applicable in various practice situations. One 
of the social work specializations which appears most interested in resilience is school 
social work (Bein, 1999; Early & Vonk, 2001; Reimer, 2002). This may be due to the 
long-standing interest in resilience in the field of education and the fact that much of the 
resilience literature has focused on childhood. However, even in the literature devoted to 
school social work, there do not seem to be any studies on social workers’ familiarity 
with resilience, knowledge of resilience or applications of resilience-based treatment.  

In spite of child welfare workers’ lack of familiarity with resilience and its 
implications for practice, there is an increasing body of knowledge addressing the 
effectiveness of many resilience-informed interventions (Fraser & Galinsky, 2004). 
Thomlinson (2004) describes a number of interventions that have been empirically 
researched and found to be effective in addressing issues leading to or resulting from 
child maltreatment on an individual, family, and environmental level. For example, there 
are programs that have been found to be effective for increasing parenting skills or for 
enhancing family social support, both of which are related to resilience. As pointed out 
by Fraser and Galinsky (2004), effective social work practice utilizes strategies that 
enhance protective factors and minimize risk factors in a child’s individual life, family 
life, and community. 

Child welfare workers who are operating from a resilience-informed perspective 
must be aware not only of the risk and protective factors that make up resilience, but also 
of interventions that have been found to be effective in increasing resilience. Corcoran 
and Nichols-Casebolt (2004) have developed a framework for assessing risk and 
protective factors and developing related goals for intervention on three levels: the micro 
(individual and family), mezzo (neighborhood, school, church), and macro (broader 
society). For example, intervention goals for a child who is born with low intelligence 
might be to increase parenting skills (micro), to develop school programs for special 
needs children (mezzo), or to advocate for educational funding for special needs children 
(macro).  



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2010, 11(1)  21  
 

As brought out by the literature review, researchers have made a convincing 
argument for the usefulness and effectiveness of the resilience perspective and its 
relevance to practice. However, there is hardly any research about child welfare workers’ 
attitudes toward or knowledge about the use of resilience in practice. Distinguishing it 
from other studies, this study examines child welfare workers’ application of resilience-
informed assessment and intervention. It further answers the question whether child 
welfare workers with a degree in social work are more likely to use resilience based 
approach in their practice than those with non-social work training.  

METHODOLOGY 
The purpose of the study was to examine child welfare workers’ self-reported 

knowledge and skills in using resilience-based assessment, intervention, and case 
management in working with children in the public child welfare system in a central 
California county. Accordingly, the data for the current study were collected from a 
Public Child Welfare Services (CWS) agency in a central California county. All of the 
child welfare workers contacted had worked or were currently working with children in 
out-of-home care. A self-administered questionnaire consisting of closed and open-ended 
questions was used to collect information from the respondents. In order to examine 
respondents’ knowledge of resilience approach, a selected number of variables from the 
literature review were identified and listed as risk and protective factors associated with 
the concept of resilience. Respondents were then asked to put a check in one of the 
appropriate boxes marked as “protective factors” and ‘risk factors.” Questionnaires were 
then distributed to 240 child welfare workers, and 102 completed questionnaires were 
returned which resulted in a response rate of 42.5%.  

The data collected from the 102 completed questionnaires were analyzed using SPSS. 
Descriptive analysis including chi-square was performed in order to achieve the study 
objectives and answer the research questions. Qualitative data were also analyzed by 
identifying the major themes. The following section summarizes the main findings of the 
study. 

FINDINGS 

Demographic Profile 

Respondents’ ages ranged from 24 to 65 years with the mean age of 39.37 years (SD 
= 10.21). With respect to gender, 69% of the respondents were females and 31% were 
males. In terms of educational qualification, 24% had MSW degrees while nearly two-
thirds (65%) had undergraduate degrees. The majority (53%) had social and behavioral 
science as the major. While 24% reported social work as their major, the rest had 
counseling, psychology and business administration as their major.  

The respondents worked in a variety of programs such as Adoptions (8.8%), Family 
services such as Family Reunification, Family Maintenance, Court Review (25.5%), 
Independent Living and Family Decision Making, etc. (11.8%), Emergency Response 
(9.8%), Court Intake (15.7%), Long Term Foster Care/Permanent Placement (27.5%), 



Thomas, Reifel/CHILD WELFARE WORKERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF RESILIENCE                                   22 

and Licensing (1%). Their length of experience in these programs ranged from three 
months to 30 years with a mean of 6.09 years (SD = 5.57). Most of the respondents were 
child welfare workers along with a few supervisors, one program specialist, and one 
program director.  

Child Welfare Workers’ Knowledge of the Concept of Resilience  

Review of literature indicates that resilience includes concepts such as: Risk factors, 
Protective factors, Vulnerability, Adversity/Trauma, Adaptation and Buffer. To examine 
the extent of child welfare workers’ understanding of resilience, respondents were asked 
to identify whether or not the above listed concepts are associated with resilience. As 
shown in Table 1, a significant majority of child welfare workers correctly identified all 
the listed concepts as associated with resilience. Clearly, from a conceptual standpoint, 
most of the workers were able to identify some of the resilience constructs.  

Table 1. Understanding of Constructs Associated with Resilience 

 Yes No Total 

Risk Factors 72.5% 
(66) 

27.5% 
(25) 

100% 
(91) 

Protective Factors 79.1% 
(72) 

20.9% 
(19) 

100% 
(91) 

Vulnerability 82.0% 
(73) 

18.0% 
(16) 

100% 
(89) 

Adversity/Trauma 83.7% 
(77) 

16.3% 
(15) 

100% 
(92) 

Adaptation 91.4% 
(85) 

08.6% 
(8) 

100% 
(93) 

Buffer 73.0% 
(65) 

27.0% 
(24) 

100% 
(89) 

 
Similarly, from the literature review, a selected number of variables identified by the 

researchers as risk and protective factors were listed. As child welfare workers, 
respondents were asked to mark whether a given variable is a risk or protective factor 
associated with resilience in the provision of child welfare services. It was thought that 
the correct identification of these factors by the majority of the respondents would be 
further evidence of their understanding of resilience and its application to various 
situations related to clients. Table 2 presents data on the child welfare workers’ views on 
risk and protective factors. 



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2010, 11(1)  23  
 

Based on the literature review, protective factors used in the questionnaire and 
presented in Table 2 include sense of being loved, positive ethnic identity, family 
flexibility, and attendance at good schools. Risk factors include multiple placements, 
being an older child, having a brief stay in out of home placements, having an insecure 
parent-child attachment, coming from a single parent family, living in poverty, and being 
a child with special needs. As shown in Table 2, an overwhelming majority of the 
respondents correctly marked sense of being loved (98%), positive ethnic identity 
(91.8%), attendance in good schools (88.8%) and family flexibility (85.7%) as protective 
factors. Similarly, most of them correctly identified multiple placements (91.8%), single 
parent family (91.5%), living in poverty (93.8%), and child behavioral problems (98%) as 
risk factors. Interestingly enough, “being an older child” stands out as a variable which 
59.2% identified as a protective factor while the existing literature identifies it as a risk 
factor.  

Table 2. Views of Risk and Protective Factors Related to Resilience  

Factors Protective factors Risk factors Total

Sense of being loved 98.0% (96) 2.0%   (2) 100% (98)

Positive ethnic identity 91.8% (90) 8.2%   (8) 100% (98)

Multiple Placements 8.2%   (8) 91.8% (90) 100% (98)

Family Flexibility 85.7% (84) 14.3% (14) 100% (98)

Being an older child 59.2% (58) 40.8% (40) 100% (98)

Attendance at good schools 88.8% (87) 11.2% (11) 100% (98)

Brief stay in out of home placement 37.8% (37) 62.2% (61) 100% (98)

Insecure parent/child attachment 4.0%   (4) 96.0% (95) 100% (99)

Single parent family 8.5%   (8) 91.5% (86) 100% (94)

Living in poverty 6.3%   (6) 93.8% (90) 100% (96)

Child behavior problems 2.0%   (2) 98.0% (97) 100% (99)

Child with special needs 4.1% (  4) 95.9% (94) 100% (98)

  
The study participants were asked to write about their knowledge and understanding 

of a resilience-based approach in the context of child welfare practice. The majority of 
respondents had limited knowledge about the approach or were unfamiliar with the 



Thomas, Reifel/CHILD WELFARE WORKERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF RESILIENCE                                   24 

approach. It is important to exercise caution since the majority of the respondents in this 
sample had social and behavioral sciences as their major and did not have a degree in 
social work. However, some participants felt Child Welfare staff used this approach. The 
themes derived from the qualitative data included: 1) Resilience may be genetic; 2) 
Resilience approach identifies strengths of the child and identifies the risk factors as a 
way to foster resilience in a child; 3) Resilience approach is the ability of a child to 
recover from a traumatic situation and 4) Resilience approach encourages intervention 
that strengthens families through developing supports in the family’s environment. These 
themes show that participants’ understanding of the resilience-based approach primarily 
includes identifying strengths within the individual’s and/or family’s environment in an 
effort to foster support systems that will assist individuals and families in becoming 
autonomous or in recovering from traumatic experiences. Some comments about a 
resilience-based approach that highlight these themes include:  

This focuses on a child’s strengths and how to foster those strengths 

By reinforcing the child’s sense of self worth, and strengthen family ties 

… use strengths of the child in order to increase the child’s self image and 
therefore impact the child’s life 

Familiarity with and Use of Resilience 

Table 3 presents data on the familiarity with and use of resilience-based interventions 
by child welfare workers sorted by those with a degree in social work and by those 
without a degree in social work. Findings show that 96% of workers with a degree in 
social work are familiar with the concept of resilience compared to 45% of workers 
without a degree in social work. These differences are found to be statistically significant 
(df = 1, p< .0001). Similarly, 54% of respondents with a degree in social work reported 
familiarity with the use of resilience-based interventions in Child Welfare Services 
(CWS) practice. In sharp contrast, only 12% of workers without a degree in social work 
are reported to be familiar with the use of resilience-based interventions.  

These differences are found to be statistically significant (df = 1, p< .0001). Similar 
differences are found to exist between workers with a degree in social work and workers 
without a degree in social work in terms of their current and past use of resilience-based 
interventions and or case management in working with out of home care children (df = 1, 
p< .04). 



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2010, 11(1)  25  
 

Table 3. Child Welfare Workers’ Degree and Familiarity with and Use of a 
Resilience-Based Approach 

Question  Social Work 
Degree 

No Social 
Work Degree 

Are you familiar with the concept of resilience? Yes 23 (95.8%) 32 (45.1%)

No 1 (04.2%) 39 (54.9%)

 df = 1, p < .0001 

Are you familiar with the use of resilience-
based interventions in Child Welfare services? 

Yes 13 (54/2%) 9 (12.3%)

No 11 (45.8%) 64 (87.7%)

 df = 1, p < .0001 

Do you currently use any resilience-based 
assessment or case management in working 
with foster care/child welfare? 

Yes 10 (43.5%) 14 (21.5%)

No 13 (56.5%) 51 (78.5%)

 df = 1, p < .04 

Have you used any resilience-based assessment 
or intervention in working with foster 
care/child welfare in the past? 

Yes 11 (45.8%) 15 (23.4%)

No 13 (54.2%) 49 (76.6%)

 df = 1, p < .04 

 
Study participants were asked to describe their understanding of the concept of 

resilience. Qualitative analysis of the data shows that the majority of the respondents had 
some familiarity with the concept. Some of the ideas related to the resilience concept 
include: 1) Ability of the children to “bounce back” from adverse situations; 2) Ability to 
adapt to various situations; 3) Elements of the social environment that contribute to 
healthy adoption of children and families; 4) Child’s strength in family and foster family 
areas; and 5) Use of coping mechanisms under stress. These themes show that the 
respondents viewed resilience as including both the ability to bounce back from adverse 
situations or traumas and the existence of certain elements in the family or environment 
that contribute to the healthy development of individuals despite the adversities of their 
life. The following quotes on resilience concepts support the above discussion:  

Being able to bounce back to normalcy from a traumatic experience, illness or 
misfortune 



Thomas, Reifel/CHILD WELFARE WORKERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF RESILIENCE                                   26 

Ability to overcome odds that others seem to succumb to 

Those elements of the social environment that contributes to healthy adoption of 
children and families to the environment 

This study also examined whether or not child welfare workers used any resilience-
based interventions in their work with the children. Respondents were asked to describe 
their understanding of resilience-based interventions. Qualitative analysis of the data 
shows that some of them consider the use of the strengths perspective as synonymous 
with resilience-based interventions. The major themes derived from this question are: 1) 
Using services that minimize trauma and builds on strength; 2) Using a strengths-based 
approach; 3) Cultivating strength in children and families to increase functioning; and 
4)Fostering protective factors. These themes are generally related to strengths 
perspective, and child welfare workers in this study seem to relate resilience mostly with 
strength. The following are some of their responses on resilience-based interventions: 

 Any meetings or assessment to assist the family with getting back to normalcy 

Providing preventive services to clients to strengthen their support structure 

Utilizing/cultivating strengths in families/children to increase functioning 

The participants were asked to describe whether or not they used any resilience-based 
assessments, interventions, or case management techniques in working with foster 
care/child welfare in the past. The majority of the respondents were able to identify some 
techniques used in their current practice that they believed were related to resilience. The 
themes derived from the qualitative data analysis included: 1) Using a strengths-based 
approach with families as a technique; 2) Using resilience-based assessments including a 
“multi-integrated service” approach (active collaboration with various community 
agencies); 3) Using the community resources to support a child’s current living 
environment; 4) Maintaining a child’s connection to a significant adult, to the child’s 
family, and to other support systems; and 5) Feeling that the child welfare worker’s 
practice itself is based on a resilience-based approach and assessment. Excerpts about 
child welfare workers’ use of resilience-based assessments, interventions, and case 
management that highlight these themes include:  

Build on child’s strengths—provide child with positive experiences and positive 
understanding of self 

… SSW’s can intuitively identify those strengths on which to build 

… use of community resources, concurrent planning, permanency planning, least 
restrictive placements 

… Use strengths of the child in order to increase the child’s self image and 
therefore impact the child’s life 

The respondents’ perceived importance of resilience-based assessment, intervention, 
and case management has been analyzed. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “not 
important” and 5 being “important,” child welfare workers were asked to rate “How 
important do you think it is to use resilience-based assessment, interventions and case 



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2010, 11(1)  27  
 

management in out of home care services?” Their responses show that a majority think it 
is important or very important to use resilience-based assessment (65%), resilience-based 
intervention (68%), and resilience-based case management (66%). Clearly, child welfare 
workers do recognize the importance of using a resilience-based approach to working 
with children in out-of-home care. 

The study further explored whether or not respondents’ education and training 
contained any course work on resilience in general or resilience-based assessment, 
intervention and case management. For this, the education variable was recoded into 
child welfare workers with a degree in social work and child welfare workers without a 
degree in social work. This variable has been further analyzed using whether 
respondents’ education included content on resilience. The findings reveal that while 
79% of workers with a degree in social work reported that resilience was discussed in 
their course work, only 17% of workers without a degree in social work stated that 
resilience was discussed in their course work. Furthermore, 36% of workers with a 
degree in social work also reported that their course work included specific resilience-
based assessment, interventions and case management. In contrast, 88% of workers 
without a degree in social work stated that their course work did not include specific 
resilience-based assessment, interventions and case management. Clearly, this has 
implications for practice and for the hiring decisions made by public child welfare 
programs.    

DISCUSSION 
A significant majority of child welfare workers correctly identified all the listed 

constructs associated with the concept of resilience. Similarly, most of them correctly 
identified risk and protective factors which are central to the understanding of resilience 
concepts. They were able to group most of the constructs that were listed in the 
questionnaire into risk and protective factors. However, findings from qualitative analysis 
show that majority of the respondents were not very aware of the difference between 
resilience and the strengths perspective. For example, major themes which emerged from 
qualitative analysis concerning child welfare workers’ knowledge about resilience seem 
to center on identifying strengths within the individual, family, and the environment. 
Many respondents described resilience as use of services that minimize trauma and build 
on strength or use of interventions related to strengths-based approaches to enhance 
functioning. A similar interchange of concepts is evident in the literature: some writers 
describe strengths and resilience as synonymous.  

In terms of familiarity with and use of resilience concept in their practice, findings 
reveal a significant difference between workers with a degree in social work and workers 
without a degree in social work. Clearly workers with a degree in social work are more 
familiar with the concept of resilience and in the use of resilience based approaches in 
their practice. Similar differences are also observed between workers with and without a 
social work degree in their current use of resilience based assessments and interventions. 
Clearly, resilience based assessment and interventions are currently used more by 
workers with a social work degree. This has implications in the public child welfare 



Thomas, Reifel/CHILD WELFARE WORKERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF RESILIENCE                                   28 

system for hiring social workers who are trained to use a resilience-based approach in 
working with children.  

The majority of workers without a degree in social work reported that a resilience 
framework was not discussed in their course work nor did the course work include 
specific resilience based assessments, interventions, and case management. These 
findings have implications for hiring social workers over non-social workers and for 
providing additional training for non-social workers in the use of resilience-based 
approach. If public child welfare system hires workers with a degree in social work, they 
are more likely to incorporate resilience informed practice in working with at-risk 
children. Such resilience-based assessment and intervention strategies focusing on 
identifying and building protective factors for at-risk children can enhance quality of 
service. It is equally important to provide extra training for non-social workers in the use 
of resilience-based approach in working with out of home care children. Such education 
and training is likely to improve the success rate of out-of-home care services.  

Despite the differences between child welfare workers with social work degree and 
without social work degree, a significant majority of child welfare workers think that it is 
important or very important to use resilience-based assessment, intervention, and case 
management in their work. Clearly, child welfare workers in general do recognize the 
importance of using a resilience-based approach to working with children in out-of-home 
care. Given the nature of risk and vulnerability found in these children, child welfare 
workers possibly realize the importance of building on the protective factors which in 
turn can buffer the risk factors. 

In terms of practice, child welfare workers’ knowledge of resilience-informed 
interventions not only helps them to refocus on the assets and resources of the child, but 
also stimulates children and families to build on resources. Knowledge of a resilience 
informed framework helps the workers to focus on protective factors and sow the seeds 
of prevention at an early stage in the intervention process (Thomas, Chenot & Reifel, 
2005). This is possible only if all child welfare workers, including those without a degree 
in social work, possess the knowledge and skills to use resilience-based interventions. 

Although the findings of this study add to the existing literature, there are several 
limitations that need to be considered. The study employed a convenience sample of child 
welfare workers currently working in the public child welfare system of a central 
California county. Such a sampling method does not assure adequate representativeness 
of the population. Thus, the results cannot be generalizable beyond the study population. 
It should be noted that this is primarily a baseline study, and, by intent, exploratory. 
Hence, it only provides an empirical base for future theoretical formulations, by 
identifying a matrix of important variables associated with knowledge and skill levels of 
some child welfare workers. These factors serve as external threats to the generalizability 
of the study’s findings to child welfare workers in other settings. The weak response rate 
is yet another threat to the external validity of this study.  



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2010, 11(1)  29  
 

CONCLUSION 
The majority of child welfare workers in this study are familiar with the concept of 

resilience, recognize its importance, and believe that a resilience-informed practice is 
important. However, the majority also state that they do not use resilience-based 
assessments, interventions, or case management. Furthermore, the majority of child 
welfare workers without a degree in social work state that the concept of resilience and 
its implications for practice were not discussed during their education and training. Child 
welfare workers with a social work degree are more likely to use resilience-informed 
practice than those without a social work degree. This paper underscores the benefit of 
hiring social workers over non-social workers in the public child welfare system and for 
providing extra training for non-social workers in using resilience based approach in 
working with out of home care children.  

References 

Anthony, J. (1987). Risk, vulnerability, and resilience: An overview. In E. J. Anthony & 
B. Cohler (Eds.), The invulnerable child (pp. 3-48). New York: Guilford Press. 

Bein, A. M. (1999). School social worker involvement in mentoring programs. Social 
Work in Education, 21(2), 120-129. 

Corcoran, J., & Nichol-Casebolt, A. (2004). Risk and resilience ecological framework for 
assessment and goal formulation. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(3), 
211-235. 

Courtney, M. E. (1995). Reentry to foster care of children returned to their families. 
Social Service Review, 69, 226-241. 

Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected 
findings from the first decade of a prospective longitudinal study. Journal of 
Marriage & Family, 64(2), 361-373.  

Coombs, K., & Anderson, R. (2000). The impact of family of origin on social workers 
from alcoholic families. Clinical Social Work Journal, 28(3), 281-302. 

Davis, I. P., Sandsverk, J., Newton, R., & Ganger, W. (1996). Parental visiting and foster 
care reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 18(4/5), 363-382. 

Dillon, C. O., Liem, J. H., & Gore, S. (2003). Navigating disrupted transitions: Getting 
back on track after dropping out of high school. American Journal of 
Orthopsychiatry, 73(4), 429-440.  

Douglass, A. (1996). Rethinking the effects of homelessness on children: Resiliency and 
competency. Child Welfare, 75(6), 741-752. 

Egan, M. (1993). Resilience at the front lines: Hospital social work with AIDS patients 
and burnout. Social Work in Health Care, 18(2), 109-125. 

Early, T. J., & Vonk, E. M. (2001). Effectiveness of school social work from a risk and 
resilience perspective. Children & Schools, 23(1), 9-31. 



Thomas, Reifel/CHILD WELFARE WORKERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF RESILIENCE                                   30 

Fergusson, D. M., & Lynskey, M. T. (1996). Adolescent resiliency to family adversity. 
Journal of Child Psychology Psychiatry, 37(3), 281-292. 

Festinger, T. (1996). Going home and returning to foster care. Children and Youth 
Services Review, 18(4/5), 383-402. 

Flynn, R. J., Ghazal, H., Legault, L., Vandermeulen, G., & Petrick, S. (2004). Use of 
population measures and norms to identify resilient outcomes in young people in 
care: An exploratory study. Child and Family Social Work, 9(1), 65-79. 

Fraser, M. W. (Ed.). (2004). Risk and resilience in childhood: An ecological perspective. 
(2nd ed.). Washington DC: NASW Press. 

Fraser, M. W., & Galinsky, M. J. (2004). Risk and resilience in childhood: Toward an 
evidence-based model of practice. In M. Fraser (Ed.), Risk and resilience in 
childhood: An ecological perspective (pp. 385-402). Washington, DC: NASW Press. 

Fraser, M. W., & Richman, J. M. (1999). Risk, protection, and resilience: Toward a 
conceptual framework for social work practice. Social Work Research, 23(3), 131-
144. 

Fraser, M. W., Walton, E., Lewis, R. E., Pecora, P. J., & Walton, W. K. (1996). An 
experiment in family reunification: Correlates of outcomes at one-year follow-up. 
Children and Youth Services Review, 18(4/5), 335-361. 

Freedman, T. G. (2004). Voices of 9/11 first responders: Patterns of collective resilience. 
Clinical Social Work Journal, 32(4), 377-393. 

George, R. M., & Wulczyn, F. H. (1990). Placement duration and foster care reentry in 
New York and Illinois. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center. 

Gilgun, J. (1996). Human development and diversity in ecological perspective, part 1: A 
conceptual framework. Families in Society, 77(7), 395-402. 

Gilgun, J., Keskinen, S., Marti, D. J., & Rice, K. (1999). Clinical applications of the 
CASPARS instruments: Boys who act out sexually. Families in Society, 80(6), 629-
641. 

Gilligan, R. (2004). Promoting resilience in child and family social work: Issues for 
social work practice, education and policy. Social Work Education, 23(1), 93-104. 

Goldstein, H. (1997). Victors or victims? In D. Saleebey (Ed.). The strengths perspective 
in social work (pp. 21-35). New York: Longman. 

Greene, R. R. (Ed.). (2002). Resiliency: An integrated approach to practice, policy and 
research. Washington, DC: NASW Press. 

Henry, D. L. (1999). Resilience in maltreated children: Implications for special needs 
adoption. Child Welfare, 78(5), 519-541. 

Horwitz, M. (1998). Social worker trauma: Building resilience in child protection social 
workers. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 68(3), 363-377. 



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2010, 11(1)  31  
 

Johnson, K., Bryant, D. D., Collins, D., Noe, T. D., Strader, T. N., & Berbaum, M. 
(1998). Preventing and reducing alcohol and other drug use among high-risk youths 
by increasing family resilience. Social Work, 43(4). 297-308. 

Jones, L. (1998). The social and family correlates of successful reunification of children 
in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 20(4), 305-323. 

Kaplan, C. P., Turner, S., Norman, E., & Stillson, K. (1996). Promoting resilience 
strategies: A modified consultation model. Social Work in Education, 18(3), 158-168. 

Laframboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of 
biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 395-412. 

Little, M., Axford, N., & Morpeth, L. (2004). Research review: Risk and protection in the 
context of services for children in need. Child and Family Social Work, 9, 105-117. 

Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical 
evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543-562. 

Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development in competence in favorable 
and unfavorable environments. American Psychologist, 53, 205-220.  

Miller, D. B., & MacIntosh, R. (1999). Promoting resilience in urban African American 
adolescents: Racial socialization and identity. Social Work Research, 23(3), 159-170. 

Nash, J. K., & Bowen, G. L. (1999). Perceived crime and informal social control in the 
neighborhood as a context for adolescent behavior: A risk and resilience perspective. 
Social Work Research, 23(3), 171-187. 

Palmer, S. E. (1996). Placement stability and inclusive practice in foster care: An 
empirical study. Children and Youth Services Review, 18(7), 589-601. 

Patterson, J. M. (2002). Understanding family resilience. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 
58(3), 233-246. 

Reimer, M. S. (2002). Gender, risk, and resilience in the middle school context. Children 
and Schools, 24(1), 35-47. 

Rutter, M., Maugham, B., Mortimore, P., & Ouston, J. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours. 
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  

Saleebey, D. (1997). The strength perspective: Possibilities and problems. In D. Saleebey 
(Ed.). The strengths perspective in social work (pp. 385-402). New York: Longman. 

Smokowski, P. R. (1998). Prevention and intervention strategies for promoting resilience 
in disadvantaged children. Social Service Review, 72(3), 337-364. 

Thomas, M., Chenot, D., & Reifel, B. (2005). A resilience-based model of reunification 
and reentry: Implications for out-of-home care services. Families in Society, 86(2), 
235-243. 



Thomas, Reifel/CHILD WELFARE WORKERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF RESILIENCE                                   32 

Thomlinson, B. (2004). Child maltreatment: A risk and protective factor perspective. In 
M. Fraser (Ed.), Risk and resilience in childhood: An ecological perspective (pp. 89-
131). Washington, DC: N.A.S.W. Press. 

Van Breda, A. D. (1999). Developing resilience to routine separations: An occupational 
social work intervention. Families in Society, 80(6), 597-605. 

Wells, K., & Guo, S. (1999). Reunification and reentry of foster children. Children and 
Youth Services Review, 21(4), 273-294. 

Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A study of resilient 
children. New York: McGraw-Hill.  

 
Author’s note: 
Address correspondence to: Madhavappallil Thomas, Ph.D., Department of Social Work, 

California State University, Bakersfield, 9001 Stockdale Highway, Bakersfield, CA 
93311-1099. Email: mthomas5@csub.edu