From the zone of risk to the zone of resilience: Investigating resilience in child protection in Argentina, Canada & Ireland

Objective This study explores the concept of resilience in Child Protection and examines how child protection workers (CPW’s) construct and promote resilience in different cultural settings. It also examines how CPW’s can... [ view full abstract ]

Objective
This study explores the concept of resilience in Child Protection and examines how child protection workers (CPW’s) construct and promote resilience in different cultural settings. It also examines how CPW’s can remain resilient through a process of shared resilience with clients. The goal is to identify resilience-based interventions and to understand the process by which CPWs remain competent and committed despite work related adversity. The study asks three basic questions. (1) How is the concept of resilience understood within child protection practice? (2) What do CPW’s do to promote resilience in children and families? (3) How does shared resilience protect against compassion fatigue and burnout?
Method
Interviews were conducted in three different countries allowing for diversity of culture, policy and practice in the delivery of child welfare services. Through a series of 60 semi-structured interviews, CPWs were encouraged to discuss their views of resilience, and to reflect on how resilience based work impacted their own sense of resilience. Interviews were taped and transcribed and qualitative thematic analysis was conducted using an adaptation of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Although many similarities were identified, significant differences were found with respect to how resilience is constructed and promoted in each location. Differences were also identified in how CPWs remain resilient (committed and competent) despite adversity
Results
Findings from the study suggest that resilience is not a unitary concept and that the idea of collective resilience (teams, communities, shared & vicarious) may be more meaningful for many CPW’s than an individualized notion of resilience. Social work practitioners struggle to support resilience in children because of the contradictions and ambiguities of child protection practice.
Conclusion
It is hoped that the study will encourage knowledge generation and reflection on the importance of resilience–based supervision, and contribute to helping children and CPWs develop more resilient relationships