discussion post
In Spite of All, We Make It: Themes of Stress and Resiliency as Told by
Women in Families Living in Poverty Etty Vandsburger, Ph.D., LCSW Marcia Harrigan, Ph.D., MSW
Marilyn Biggerstaff, DSW, LCSW
ABSTRACT. The purpose of this research study was to increase our understanding of how families living in poverty successfully meet life challenges. Family resiliency provided the theoretical framework for examining family coping and adaptation. This study used a purposive sample of women {N = 128) in families with children attending Head Start. All families lived below or at poverty level, most with 11th grade education or high-school/GED diploma. Content analysis methods were used for data analysis. Results of this study identify the charac- teristics that promote competence, including how individual, family, and environmental factors are potential Stressors that also may serve to promote family resilience. The data indicate that family love and mutual support, as well as faith, help stressed families cope and
Etty Vandsburger is affiliated with the School of Social Work, Radford University, P.O. Box 6958, Radford, VA 24142 (E-mail: evandsbur® radford.edu).
Marcia Harrigan is affiliated with the School of Social Work, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1001 West Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23284-2027 (E-mail: mharrig@vcu.edu).
Marilyn A. Biggerstaff, Professor Emeritus. School of Social Work, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1001 West Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23284-2027.
Journal of Family Social Work, Vol. 11(1) 2008 Available online at http://jfsw.haworthpress.com
© 2008 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1080/10522150802007303 17
18 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
tnaintain meaning in spite of lack of control over life circumstances resulting from economic poverty.
KEYWORDS. Content-analysis, family, poverty, resiliency, stress
Increasing numbers of families in the United States are experiencing economic hardships. In 2005, the overall poverty rate was 12.6%, representing a total of 37 million people. Of these, 10.8% were fam- ilies and 20.2% (4 million) were children under age six (U.S. Bureau ofthe Census, 2005). Poverty is not just a problem of joblessness. It is also a result of being part of a contingent workforce characterized by incomes that are too low and unsteady employment, further com- promised by unreliable wages from part time, rather than full-time, work to sustain living above the official poverty threshold. In 2004, 37 million, or 12.7% of the population with at least one member in the labor force, were classified as working poor (U.S. Department of Labor, 2004).
Poverty is defined concretely by Federal government as the inability to afford minimum standards of food, clothing, shelter, and health care. In 2006 the federal poverty measure for a family of four (two adults and two children) was $20,000 (Department of Health and Human Services, 2006). More abstractly, poverty is a family's perception of their economic hardship. Economic hardship includes the "aspects of economic life that are potential Stressors for individuals and families" (Voydanoff, 1991, p. 432).
As researchers have recognized, there is no simple or single expla- nation to social problems (Fraser, Richman, & Galinsky, 1999), nor is there a single consequence. Economic hardship increases the risks for emotional distress, which in turn destabilizes marital relationships and can lead to family confiict, violence, and family dissolution (Conger, Rueter, & Elder, 1999). Experiencing economic hardship affects the psychological well being of parents and may result in harsh discipline of children (Fisher, Fagot, & Leve, 1998). Further, eco- nomic hardship is associated with an increased incidence of child neglect and abuse (Lee & George, 1999). When experienced by poor families, these additional stresses result in stress pile up that renders the family vulnerable (McCubbin, Thompson, & McCubbin, 1996).
Concerns regarding stresses experienced by families and the risk they pose to a family's well being "demand an understanding of
Vandsburger, Hamgan, and Biggerstaff 19
how people struggle to surmount difficult or perilous life circum- stances" (Greene, 2002, p. 1). The purpose of this study was to explore families' views of the stresses affecting their lives and how they cope with them. This study is important in that it adds to the relatively new (Walsh, 1998) and under-studied body of knowledge (Greene, 2002) on family stress and resiliency. Identification of the risks that families living in poverty are facing and the protective measures they use to overcome stress also can result in tailoring services to these families. Listening to women's accounts of their daily plights and their efforts to maintain a sense of meaning in spite of the stresses they face helps us better understand their world and our role as professionals assisting them.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Family Resiliency
Early studies of risk and resiliency focused on disadvantaged children facing adverse conditions to explore the effects of risk and protective factors on these children's adjustment (Garmezy, 1993; Rutter, 1987; Werner & Smith, 2001). Using longitudinal and case study methods, these studies revealed that a combination of personal traits, protec- tive factors in the family, and a consistent support from a significant person, are the most salient factors contributing to resiliency in chil- dren and adults (Garmezy, 1993; Rutter, 1987; Werner & Smith, 2001; Wolin & Wolin, 1993). These studies showed that in order to understand how people cope with risks, they "must be understood within an ecological context" (Greene & Conrad, 2002, p. 32). Risk factors need to include an examination of people's immediate (par- ents, other family members), and more distant environments (macro systems, e.g., political climate) (Kirby & Fraser, 1997), including racism and living in risky neighborhoods (Genero, 1998). Further, risk factors and protective factors are understood as relative and dynamic processes (Greene, 2007).
The study of family resiliency is relatively new (Greene, 2002). Family resiliency is "the ability of the family to develop and/or maintain healthy family functioning and successfully adapt to life's challenges and risks" (Patterson, 1997, p. 8). To date, a substantial amount of the existing research on family resiliency was guided by
20 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
McCubbin, Thompson, and McCubbin's (1996) Resiliency Model of Stress, Adjustment, and Adaptation. As thoroughly described by these authors as well as by Kropf and Greene (2002), this model is an evolvement of the earliest Family Stress Model as developed by Reuben Hill (1949). According to this model, each family strives to maintain a balance between ongoing challenges and demands. Successful achievement of a balance, especially in light of major demands, is what makes a family resilient (Patterson, 1997). A crisis develops when challenges exceed capabilities (Kropf & Greene, 2002). The basic assumptions underlying this model state that stress is a natural part of life for which families develop competencies that fos- ter growth in individual members and the family unit as a whole. Further, families draw from and contribute to the network of rela- tionships and resources in the community, which in turn provides support to the family in times of crises. Finally, in time of crises, families work to restore order in their lives (McCubbin, Thompson, & McCubbin, 1996).
Stress and Family Resiliency
Stress has been defined as "a relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well being" (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 21). People respond differently to stress in dif- ferent points of their lives depending on the amount of stress they face (the cumulative stress) (Cowan, Cowan, & Shulz, 1996). Additionally, people's responses to stress are a function of their appraisal of the event as posing strain on their personal resources and abilities to overcome stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Research on family resiliency is limited to identifying the charac- teristics or special traits of resilient, well functioning families (McCubbin, Thompson, & McCubbin, 1996). The resiliency model or parts of it have served as the theoretical guide in numerous studies that focused on the relationship between stress and resiliency in families. For example, this model has been used in studying resiliency in families experiencing stress due to a family member's illness (Patterson, Jernell, Leonard, & Titus, 1994), physical disability (Failla & Jones, 1991), raising a child with special needs (McNurlen, 1996), or minority youth and their families living under risky con- ditions (McCubbin, Fleming et al., 1995). It has been used in studying
Vandsburger, Harrigan, and Biggerstaff 21
resiliency in minority groups facing unsteady employment conditions (Chadiha, 1992), in couples facing economic pressure (Conger, Rueter, & Elder, 1999), and in single and dual-parent Hawaiian fam- ilies experiencing economic pressure and cultural minority status (Thompson, McCubbin, Thompson, & Elver, 1995). This model also has been used to identify resiliency resources used by military families to overcome the stress of being stationed in foreign countries (McCubbin, Thompson, & McCubbin, 1996) or experiencing acute stress resulting from one of its members missing due to war or being at sea for a prolonged period of time (Lavee, McCubbin, & Olson, 1987).
Based on a few large-scale studies of families who experienced acute stress, family researchers have concluded that the amount of stress a family encounters, as well as family strengths, skills, and com- petencies, vary across the stages of the family life cycle. While family hardships, strain, and stress are directly related to the family having children, the children's ages and family competencies vary across the stages of the family life-cycle. The number of Stressors are highest when there are adolescents at home and drops when children leave home (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1988). Stressors and strains on fam- ilies include balancing work and family, financial strains, intrafamily strains, life cycle transitions (e.g., pregnancy, members moving in and out of the home), illnesses, losses, and retirement. The resiliency attributes that facilitate adjustment and adaptability include family accord (low conflict), satisfying marital communication, good rela- tionships with other family members and friends, enjoyment of children, family and life satisfaction, enjoyable leisure, time together, personality compatibility, a satisfying sexual relationship, and agree- ment on family finances (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1988).
Family researchers further conclude that at each stage of the life cycle, a family's ability to adapt to normative transitions and stressful life events is facilitated by four factors. First are the family members' personal resiliency resources, such as positive self-esteem and self- reliance. The second is a family's shared belief system and the meaning they make of a challenge, including expression of optimism, spirituality, and the family's cultural heritage. The third factor is social support from family, friends and the larger community. Finally, the family's coping strategies and the techniques the family uses to solve problems and maintain family integrity (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1988) comprise the fourth factor.
22 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
The purpose of this study was to explore the challenges that fami- lies of young children living in poverty face and how they cope with these stresses. As the literature review demonstrates, people possess resiliency resources that they use in order to adapt to or overcome stresses that they face. Therefore, in order to understand how people cope with risks affecting their lives, it is appropriate to apply a risk and resiliency framework. Further, as family researchers have empha- sized, both risk and protective factors need to be studied within an ecological contextual framework (cumulative stress and multiple resiliency resources), understood as relative and dynamic processes, and subject to individual subjective appraisal.
Based on previous research recommendations (Vandsburger & Biggerstaff, 2004), this study explores women's personal accounts of stress and coping. Specifically addressed are the stresses that women facing economic hardship experience and the factors that help them cope and overcome these stresses.
STUDY METHOD
Participants and Study Procedures
Study data are drawn from a nonprobability sample of 128 respon- dents representing families whose children attended Head Start centers and a similar program. For consistency in respondents' characteristics across the participating families, only the mothers were asked to complete the research instruments. Families were recruited from twelve Head Start centers and a similar "Families at Risk" program located in rural Southwest Virginia. Although not all children participating in Head Start programs come from families defined as poor, the regional director was instrumental in helping identify families that met the study criteria. Respondents were given a page containing a set of 3 open-ended questions as part of a larger questionnaire that included measures assessing family resiliency. These questions were: (1) What do you consider to be the strengths or positives of your family? (2) What are the challenges that your family is facing? (3) When your family experiences problems, any type of problems, what helps you overcome these? To increase the completeness of the data collection, each family respondent met with an individual trained to collect study data. One of the authors along
Vandsburger, Harrigan, and Biggerstaff 23
with two MSW students and selected Head Start family workers were available personally, or by phone, to answer respondents' questions. Respondents received a $10 gift certificate in gratitude for their will- ingness to participate. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board and all participants received, and signed informed consent forms.
Data Analysis Procedures
All comments that the mothers provided in response to each of the three questions were recorded verbatim into a raw data set. A six- step data analysis process was then applied. In step one, the authors, all MSW/PhD social workers with family practice experi- ence and hereafter referred to as "coders," independently read through the data to divide the responses into units of thought so that only one concept or idea was represented (Rodwell, 1998), and each unit was indexed by family number. The coders shared their unitized data with each other, discussed differences, and ulti- mately agreed upon the unitization by the end of step one. In step two, for questions 1 and 3, the coders independently employed an inductive reasoning process to systematically sort each unit of analysis into themes to create no more than 10 categories (Morse & Field, 1995; Padgett, 1998) to meet the criteria that the categories were mutually exclusive (i.e., unique, exhaustive of the data set) (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). For question 2 about the challenges the families were facing, 19 doctoral students in a social work qualitative research methods course reached con- sensus on the categories using the same constant comparison metho- dology. In step three, the coders reviewed the categories of the three questions to identify similarities and differences that were then discussed to ensure meaning and to arrive at consensus that the resultant schema met the criteria for further data analysis. In step four, each unit was independently assigned by each coder to one of the categories for that question. When at least two out of the three coders independently assigned a unit to the same category, no further consideration was given (i.e., the unit was considered representative of that category). Units of thoughts for which there was no agreement among the three coders were sorted into a separ- ate category labeled "no agreement" and deleted from further analysis. In step five, the units were tracked to the family number.
24 JOURNAL OF FAMIL Y SOCIAL WORK
Whenever the same family number appeared more than once within a category, those units were collapsed. This meant that a mother's response could be represented only once in any one category. Finally, in step six, for each question the number of units per cate- gory were tallied to provide a category prevalence score. T'hrough- out all six steps of data analysis, journal notes were kept to track the process (Sandelowski, 1993) for reference and future discussion among the researchers as to the meanings, themes, categories, and decisions related to the final tabulation of the data.
FINDINGS
Participant Characteristics
Almost 58% (n = 74) ofthe 128 respondents were white, non-Hispa- nic and married (41.4%, n = 53), ranging in age from 20 to 49 years. Fifty-eight respondents lived in single mother households (45.3%), and 17 of the respondents (13.3%) were living with a male partner (boyfriend, nance, other partner).
The majority of families participating in the study had one child (« = 42, 32.6%) or two children (n = 54, 41.9%) under age 13. Thir- teen families (10%) had adolescent children (ages 13 to 17). One fam- ily reported having a child 18 years or older living in the household. The majority of families reported a household income for 1999 of less than $16,450 (n = 89, 69.5%), the 1998 Federal poverty level. One quarter of the families had a 1999 annual income of $16,451 to $20,000 (« = 33, 25.8%) with the remainder reporting an annual income between $20,001 and $30,000 (n = 6, 4.7%). Families in this study have an average of 3.8 members (SD = 1.24; range 2-8; med- ian = 4). Three-quarters ofthe women (n — 76, 59.3%) did not com- plete high school, and almost half of them were not employed outside their home (40.6%, n = 52).
Responses to Question 1: What do You Consider to be the Strengths or Positives of Your Family?
Ninety-two mothers generated 170 units that represented eight cate- gories. Fifteen units could not be categorized or yielded no rater agreement and thus were deleted from further analysis (see Table 1). Twenty-nine percent (29%, n = 45) ofthe units had the agreement of
Vandsburger, Harrigan, and Biggerstaff 25
TABLE 1. Categories with Examples Developed from Responses to Question 1 : What Do You Consider to be the Strengths or Positives of Your Family?
Love and Affection Exs. "A core of love";
"We are very loving and caring famiiy" Openness; Communication; Respect
Exs. "Respect for each other"; "One another listen while the other speaks"
Understanding/Closeness Exs. "We are very ciose";
"Mutual understanding of what valuable to us" Personal Oualities; Hope; Desire for better Life
Exs. "My determination"; "Wanting to get out off the projects"
Stici<ing Together Exs. "The family aii working together";
"We try to spend are evening together" Faith; Religion; God (Bibie Study; Faith in God)
Exs. "Religion"; "Our faith and trust in God to see us thru anything"
People Resources; Friends; Outside Relationships Exs. "Good friends"; "my boyfriend"
None Exs. "None"; "Not Much of Anything"
Total
Percent (%)
28
17
15
13
13
8
3
2
99*
Units (n)
(44)
(26)
(24)
(20)
(20)
(13)
(5)
(3)
(155)
•Does not total 100% due to rounding Seven (7) respondents did not respond to the question.
Units not included in final tally: Eight (8) units could not be categorized due to lack of rater agreement. All raters agreed that seven (7) units held no meaning.
two of the three coders, and the remaining 71% (n = 110) of units reached 100% of coder agreement for category assignment. Seventy- three percent (n = 113) of all units point to an emotional or affective dimension of the family: Love and affection, sticking together, open communication, and closeness. Personal qualities (13%, n = 20), faith (8%, n = 12) and people resources outside of the family (3%, n = 5) represented remaining categories, and only 2% (n = 3) of the mothers reported no strengths or positives about their families. Clearly, these 92 families were in concert about their perceived strengths or positives.
26 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
Responses to Question 2: What are the Challenges That Your Family is Facing?
Twelve categories emerged from the data that represented 154 units or separate ideas from the 93 mothers who responded to the ques- tion (see Table 2). Four units (3%) had no coder agreement and were deleted from further analysis. Twenty-five percent (25%, n = 38) of the units had the agreement of two of the three coders,
TABLE 2. Categories with Examples Developed from Responses to Question 2: What are the Challenges That Your Family is Facing?
Percent of Responses (%) (n)
Financial 35.0 (53) Exs. "Bills"; "Lack of money"
Life Skills 12.6 (19) Exs. "Moving out in the world of work";
"Day-to-day Life" Parenting Issues 10.6 (16)
Exs. "Trying to get the children to listen"; "Parenting alone"
Other Exs. "We don't care"; "Need more family outings"
Interpersonal Issues, Non-Parenting Exs. "arguing"; "family feud with sister"
Drugs/Legal Exs. "Too much drugs and alcohol all the time";
"My possible incarceration- Jail sentence" Housing
Exs. "Affordable housing"; "Trying to get a house" Transportation
Exs. "Getting my driver's license"; "Need a car" Health/Illness
Exs. "Being disabled"; "My father is sick" None
Exs. "None as of right now"; "None at this time" Lack of Education/Training
Exs. "Me going to college"; "school" Insufficient Time
Exs. "Finding time to pursue interest"; "time management"
Total 99.2* (150)
•Does not total 100% due to rounding Six (6) respondents did not respond to the question. Units not included in final tally; Four (4) units could not be categorized due to lack of rater
agreement.
8.0
7.3
5.3
4.6
4.0
3.3
3.3
2.6
2.6
(12)
(11)
(8)
(7)
(6)
(5)
(5)
(4)
(4)
Vandsburger, Harrigan, and Biggerstaff 27
and the remaining 75% (n = ÍÍ2) of units reached iOO% of coder agreement for category assignment. Not unexpected, just over one- third of the responses (35%, n = 53) related to financial challenges such as being unable to pay bills or having nothing extra after bills were paid. Almost 13% (n = 19) of the units were challenges categorized as life skills such as returning to work and other transitions. Only 10.6% (n = 16) of comments related to parenting challenges. The remaining responses fell into numerous categories that were not collapsed in spite of their low frequency. These challenges provide rich data to understand the challenges faced by these families experiencing economic hardship, and in some instances the low frequencies were unexpected. For example, few respondents identified tangible goods as a challenge, which would seem reasonable when faced with poverty. That is, few mothers reported the need for a larger house, a lack of transportation, or possessing insufficient education. By contrast, and not surprisingly, only five comments indicated that these mothers have no problems that the family was facing. Other comments such as the few related to health challenges were surprising in relation to the commonly held belief that poor health is either a precipitant or consequence of poverty.
Responses to Question 3: When Your Family Experiences Problems, Any Type of Problems, What Helps You Overcome These?
The 93 mothers who responded generated 126 units that resulted in seven categories plus eight units that were not able to be categorized. Twenty-two percent (n = 29) ofthe units had the agreement of two of the three coders, and the remaining 75% (n = 101) of units reached 100% of coder agreement for category assignment. Four comments had no rater agreement as shown in Table 3. Family communication and problem solving represented just over one-third of the comments (34%, n = 41) with another 20% (n = 25) specifically pointing to family love and moral support. Together, about half of the comments indicated help existing within the family. One-fourth of the comments (n = 30) indicated that religion or God was helping to overcome the problems. Only nine percent (n = 11) did nothing or engaged in some type of avoidant behavior. Help external to the family was reported in only 12% (n = 15) of the units: Reliance on formal or inf̂ ormal
28 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
TABLE 3. Categories with Examples Developed from Responses to Question 3: When Your Family Experiences Problems, Any Type of Problems, What Helps You Overcome These?
Percent of (n) Responses (%)
Positive Communication; Problem Solving 34 (41) Exs. "Talk it out"; "Talking and making decisions"
Religion; Faith 25 (30) Exs. "Prayer and strong relationship with God"; "faith"
Family Love and Moral Support 20 (25) Exs. "the love for one another"; "Family closeness"
Do Nothing (Avoidance Behavior) 9 (11) Exs. "nothing, we have them all the time"; "Leave them alone"
Social Support (Formal/Informal; Advice) 8 (10) Exs. ""Talking to friends"; " . . . have people I can tum to"
Professional Counseling 4 (5) Exs. "See and talk to my case manager"; "counseling"
Total 100 (122)
Notes. Six (6) respondents did not respond to this question. Units not Included in final tally: all raters agreed that eight (8) units could not be categorized due to lack of meaning.
support was found in only 8% (n = 10) of the total units, and only 4% (n = 5) noted professional counseling, which would include ser- vices provided by social workers.
DISCUSSION
Within the context of the family resiliency framework that has sought to identify those resiliency resources that help families cope in times of stress, the purpose of this study was to identify the characteristics that promote resilience in families struggling with economic poverty. Results of content data analyses were powerful in highlighting what participating families living in poverty perceive their resiliency resources to be. Almost three quarters of these study participants identified their mutual love and affection for each other, their feelings of closeness, standing together for each other, and their ability to communicate openly with each other as resources they used or as their family strengths. The security gained from knowing that there are people who are close to you, love you, and whom you trust to
Vandsburger, Harrigan, and Biggerstaff 29
be there for you in bad times is the strotigest power that these families possessed. These were the strengths that helped families of this study meet harsh life conditions. Indeed, the principles of the strengths per- spective are instrumental in explaining these results, as it calls for a balanced view of the human condition in which the power of human beings to overcome and surmount adversity is acknowledged and respected (Saleebey, 1997).
This study's results support other studies on the topic of stress and resilience in poor families. Previous research has identified the posi- tive effects of resiliency resources for families experiencing harsh economic conditions. In these studies the contribution of a couple's open communication and the power of families' commitment to each other and to coping with economic hardships were identified (Conger et al., 1999; Vandsburger & Biggerstaff, 2004).
What distinguishes this study from previous research is the use of content analysis to identify the resiliency resources used by families in times of stress. It allowed for themes of resilience to emerge from the data. This study is unique in that it echoes the voices of families who live in poverty, are unable to pay the bills or plan beyond a pay-check to pay-check expense, yet at the same time perceive themselves as strong. The findings of this study point to a direct connection between what poor families perceive as their challenges and their assets. By identifying the challenges that the families face and the resiliency resources they use to overcome their problems, they shared their pride of who they are and the source of their strengths for over- coming their stresses.
The majority of this study's participants were families living in poverty with a yearly income of under $20,000.00 (95.3%, n = 94). However, when asked to identify the challenges that their families were facing, only about a third of the families (35%, n = 53) reported financial issues (e.g., unable to pay bills, having no money left after paying their bills). At the same time, when families were asked to con- sider the strengths they possess, the majority of them (75%, n = 74) saw themselves as strong. They identified strengths relating to family love, show of affection, open communication, and support, as their assets. When they were further asked to identify what helps them overcome problems, here, too, about half (n = 54%) of the families identified strengths of the family unit. These proportions necessarily give the impression that this study's participants focus on their strengths rather than dwelling on their hardships. As the existing
30 JOURNAL OF FAMIL Y SOCIAL WORK
professional literature notes, the availability and use of resiliency resources is significant for increasing competence and improving a sense of control in families (McCubbin et al., 1996; Taylor & Roberts, 1995) and for maintaining healthy family functioning (Walsh, 1993).
Religiosity was also identified by a quarter of the study's participants as a resiliency resource in overcoming problems. This supports previous, albeit limited, research findings as well. Religiosity was found to provide guidance and inspiration for making practical changes in the lives of poor African American women (Banerjee & Pyles, 2004).
Finally, a particularly noteworthy finding pointed to the fact that only eight percent (n = 10) of the families perceived formal or infor- mal support to be helpful to them, and only four percent (n = 5) found that professional counseling (including social work services) were instrumental to them in facing stress. While this leads one to think that professional intervention is not useful, what we were not able to ascertain was the proportion of our sample that accessed or had professional help with family problems. Future research will benefit from comparing perceptions of resilience among families who are receiving formal support and those who are not accessing formal services.
Implications for Social Work Practice
Findings of this study point to the importance of understanding those resiliency factors that contribute to a family's ability to overcome stress. By understanding the attributes that increase resiliency in fam- ilies, social workers can develop more effective programs and provide assistance and support families in poverty.
A strengths-based perspective should be applied throughout the intervention process. When a social worker applies assessment tools leading to the collection of deficit-focused data such as dependencies, disabilities, and dysfunctions associated with living in poverty, this focus inevitably infiuences assessment and treatment processes. A focus on deficits may lead to overlooking family and individual strengths and thus forego opportunities for practice interventions that facihtate autonomy and self-efficacy. Having a professional social worker operate within the principles of the strengths perspec- tive is paramount to providing services based on ethical practices that promote the values of empowerment and client self determination.
Vandsburger, Harrigan, and Biggerstaff 31
Applying motivational interviewing techniques and using questions that explore a family's strengths demonstrate belief in the family's ability to solve problems.
Social workers regularly meet families who experience multiple Stressors in their lives, and financial pressures are common. At times, these families are so overburdened by their financial problems that it is difficult for them to realize that they do have personal and family resources upon which they can rely. Social workers can help family members identify and build on these strengths and help families mobilize their own resiliency resources. The family resiliency model suggests that social workers engaged in family practice identify and emphasize the resources available both within and outside the family. Work with families to demonstrate strengths may result in increasing their life skills and helping families face future pressures and crises as they arise. By helping families realize that the strengths they possess, family love and affection for each other, feelings of closeness, stand- ing together for each other, and their ability to communicate openly with each other, is exactly what is important in achieving a healthy family functioning (Walsh, 1993).
Finally, families in this study identified the contribution of religious belief as a protective factor in their lives. Social workers need to respond to their clients' frame of reference and acknowledge elements of faith in their work. For example, research has demonstrated that spirituality helps people "cope, achieve inner-peace, harbor self esteem, as well as motivation to help others and preserve against life's odds" as well as a sense of direction and protection (Banerjee & Pyles, 2004, p. 62). Social workers can also advocate for including spiri- tually-based assessment tools to identify how important religiosity and spirituality is for their client. They can also develop a religious- based guide of services to meet a client's needs. According to Canda and Furman (1999), contemporary social work scholars distinguish between spirituality and religion. While spirituality "relates to a uni- versal and fundamental aspect of what is it to be human-to reach for a sense of meaning, purpose, and moral frameworks for relating with self, others, and the ultimate reality" (p. 37), religion "involves the patterning of spiritual beliefs and practices into social institutions, with community support and traditions maintained over time" (p. 44).
A resilience-based practice focuses on strengthening protective factors and contributing to reducing risks (Fraser et al., 1999). By focusing on those resiliency resources that families identify as their
32 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
source of strength and inspiration, a social worker acknowledges the pride that families may feel. He/she is then in a position to build on this information to provide families with the confidence to take charge and be pro-active about choices they make to solve their pro- blems. However, while studying family resiliency is valuable because it helps identify the strengths that families possess, it is misleading to imply that families can overcome the stress of poverty if they are stronger or receive more community services.
Incorporating a resiliency perspective in family research has its lim- itations. By focusing on family resiliency and community support, we risk ignoring factors that play an important role in contributing to family poverty. We may loose sight of the effects of the existing econ- omic system that makes it hard for some families to break the cycle of poverty. For example, factors such as gender, race, age, education, and occupation are major contributors to low income among the working poor (U.S. Department of Labor, 2004). Poverty is signifi- cantly higher in single-mother families, especially in the Hispanic and African American communities in the U.S. (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005). While the impact of poverty and economic pressure is most evident in single women-headed households, dual-parent households do not escape poverty either. In 2004, 12.7 percent of working dual-parent families were classified as working poor (U.S. Department of Labor, 2004). Future studies of family resiliency should include the effects of such factors as race, gender, and econ- omic forces on the ability of families living in poverty to overcome the perils associated with life in poverty. It is important to remember that as long as these families' economic conditions do not improve, they will continue to live in poverty, and depend on community services. It is important for policy advocates to revise policies to help families break the cycle of poverty.
Limitations of This Study
This study is limited by the voluntary nature of the sample. It is possible that only mothers who felt positive about their families agreed to participate. Therefore, it is not possible to generalize from this data to other settings. However, because this study is based on qualitative research methodology, it provides a richer source for understanding the experience of families living in poverty through voices of those involved.
Vandsburger, Harrigan, and Biggerstaff 33
The rural setting of the research is another issue worthy of further consideration. The study was carried out in the rural South, an area known as the "Bible- Belt." Both stress and resiliency might differ in urban locations or different parts of the U.S. Future research on family resiliency is needed to address the broad spectrum of families experiencing economic pressure.
Finally, because only families who currently participate in programs designed to help children and families in need were solicited for the research, the views of families not receiving community sup- ports through such programs, or families with community supports of another type, were not heard. Again, future research needs to address this gap and apply this type of study to families not involved in enrichment programs.
REFERENCES
Banerjee, M. M., & Pyles, L. (2004). Spirituality: A source of resilience for African American women in the era of welfare reform. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 13, 45-70.
Canda, E. R., & Furman, L. D. (1999). Spiritual diversity in social work practice: The heart of helping. New York: The Free Press.
Chadiha, L. A. (1992). Black husbands' economic problems and resiliency during the transition to marriage. Families in Society, 73, 542-552.
Conger, R. D., Rueter, M. A., & Elder, G. H. (1999). Couple resilience to economic pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 54-71.
Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Shulz, M. S. (1996). Thinking about risk and resili- ence in families. In M. Hetherington & E. A. Blechman (Eds.), Stress, coping and resilience in children and families (pp. 1-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Department of Health and Human Services (2006). The 2006 HHS poverty guidelines. Retrieved April 8, 2008 from http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/06poverty. shtml.
Failla, S., & Jones, L. C. (1991). Families of children with developmental disabilities: An examination of family hardiness. Research in Nursing & Health, 14, 41-50.
Fisher, P. A., Fagot, B. I., & Leve, C. S. (1998). Assessment of family stress across low-, and high-risk samples using the family events checklist. Family Relations, 47, 215-219.
Fraser, M. W., Richman, J. M., & Galinsky, M. J. (1999). Risk, protection, and resilience: Toward a conceptual framework for social work practice. Social Work Research, 23, 129-208.
Garmezy, N. (1993). Children in poverty: resilience despite risk. Psychiatry, 56, 127-136.
34 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
Genero, N. P. (1998). Culture, resiliency, and mutual psychological development. In H. I. McCubbin, E. A. Thompson, A. I. Thompson, & J. A. Futrell (Eds.), Resiliency in ethnie minority families: African-American families (pp. 31-48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greene, R. R. (2002). Human behavior theory: A resilience orientation. In R. R. Greene (Bd.), Resiliency: An integrated approach to practice, policy, and research (pp. 1-27). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Greene, R. R. (2007). The resilience enhancing model. The REM: Phase I-Assess- ment. In R. R. Greene (Ed.), Social work practice: A risk and resilience perspective (pp. 43-66). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Greene, R. R., & Conrad, A. P. (2002). Basic assumptions and terms. In R. R. Greene (Ed.), Resiliency: An integrated approach to practice, policy, and research (pp. 29-62). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress. New York: Harper. Kirby, L. D., & Eraser, M. W. (1997). Risk and resilience in childhood. In M. Eraser
(Ed.), Risk and resilience in childhood {çp. 10-33). Washington, DC: NASW Press. Kropf, N. P., & Greene, R. R. (2002). People with developmental disabilities. In
R. R. Greene (Ed.), Resiliency: An integrated approach to practice, policy, and research (pp. 293-319). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Lavee, Y., McCubbin, H. I., & Olsen, D. H. (1987). The effect of stressful life events and transitions on family functioning and well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 857-873.
Lazarus, R., & Eolkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lee, B. J., & George, R. M. (1999). Poverty, early childbearing and child maltreatment: A multinomial analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 21, 755-780.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McCubbin, H. I., Eleming, W. M., Thompson, A. I., Neitman, P., Elver, K., &
Savas, S. A. (1995). Resiliency and coping in "at risk" African-American youth and their families. In H. I. McCubbin, E. A. Thompson, A. I. Thompson, & J. A. Eutrell (Eds.), Resiliency in ethnic minority families: Vol. 2. African-American families (pp. 67-97). Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin System Center for Excellence in Family Studies.
McCubbin, H. I., & McCubbin, M. A. (1988). Typologies of resilient families: Emerging roles of social class and ethnicity. Family Relations, 37, 247-254.
McCubbin, H. L, Thompson, A. I., & McCubbin, M. A. (Eds.) (1996). Family asses- sment: Resiliency, coping, and adaptation: Inventories for research and practice. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
McNurlen, G. (1996). Resiliency in single-and dual-parent families with special needs children. Infant-Toddler Intervention, 6, 309-323.
Morse, J. M., & Field, P. A. (1995). Qualitative research methods for health professionals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vandshurger, Hamgan, and Biggerstaff 35
Padgett, D, K, (1998), Qualitative methods in social work research: Challenges and rewards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patterson, J. (1997), Promoting resiliency in families. Resiliency In Action, 2, 8-16.
Patterson, J. M,, Jernell, J,, Leonard, B, J,, & Titus, J, C, (1994), Caring for medically fragile children at home; The parent-professional relationship. Journal of Pédiatrie Nursing, 9, 98-106,
Rodwell, M, K. (1998), Social work constructivist research. New York; Garland, Rutter, M. (1987), Psychological resilience and protective mechanisms, American
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22, 323-356, Saleebey, D, (1997), The strengths perspective in social work practice. New York;
Longman, Sandelowski, M, (1993), Rigor or rigor mortis; The problem of rigor in qualitative
research revisited. Advances in Nursing Science, 16, 1-8, Taylor, R, D., & Robers, D, (1995), Kinship support and maternal and adolescent
well-being in economically disadvantaged African American families. Child Development, 66, 1585-1597,
Thompson, E, T,, McCubbin, H, L, Thompson, A, L, & Elver, K, M. (1995). Vulnerability and resiliency in native Hawaiian families under stress. In H, L McCubbin, E, A. Thompson, A, L Thompson, & J, E. Froma (Eds,), Resiliency in ethnic minority families: Vol. 1. Native and immigrant American families (pp, 115-131), Madison, WI; The University of Wisconsin System Center for Excellence in Family Studies,
U,S, Bureau of the Census, (2005), Poverty 2005—Poverty estimates by selected charts. Retrieved from http;//www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty05/ pov05hi,html
U.S, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2004), A profile of the work- ing poor. Retrieved from http;//stats,bls.gov/cps/cpswp2004.pdf,
Vandsburger, E,, & Biggerstaff, M, A, (2004), Evaluation of the stress adjustment and adaptation model among families reporting economic pressure. Journal of Family Social Work, 8, 65-84,
Voydanoff, P, (1991), Economic distress and family relations; A review of the eighties. In A, Booth (Ed,), Contemporary families: Looking forward looking back (pp, 429-445), Minneapolis, MN; National Council of Family Relations.
Walsh, F, (1993). Normal family processes (2nd Ed.). New York; The Guilford Press, Walsh, F, (1998), Strengthening family resilience. New York; Guilford Press, Werner, E,, & Smith, R. (2001), Journeys from childhood to midlife. Ithaca, NY;
Cornell University Press, Wolin, S. J,, & Wolin, S, (1993), The resilient self How survivors of troubled families
rise above adversity. New York; Villard Books,