Please see Attachments for required reading 
It is common for social workers to be presented with a crisis situation brought forth by clients, families, communities, and/or organizations. The ultimate goal is to restore the client to equilibrium. The five stages of the crisis are (1) the hazardous event, (2) the vulnerable stage, (3) the precipitating factor, (4) the state of active crisis, and (5) the reintegration or crisis resolution phase.
There are times when a social worker will use more than one theory to assist in conceptualizing the problem and intervention, particularly if the theories complement each other. For example, resiliency theory can be used alongside crisis theory.
To prepare: Review and focus on the same case study that you chose in Week 2. I attached two articles that is required reading and it will be helpful with writing this assignment. If you have any questions, please reach out. 
Submit a 1- to 2-page case write-up that addresses the following:

**Map the client’s crisis using the five stages of the crisis. (The five stages of the crisis are (1) the hazardous event, (2) the vulnerable stage, (3) the precipitating factor, (4) the state of active crisis, and (5) the reintegration or crisis resolution phase.)
*Describe the client’s assets and resources (in order to understand the client’s resilience).
*Describe how you, the social worker, will intervene to assist the client to reach the reintegration stage of the crisis. Be sure that the intervention promotes resiliency.
*Evaluate how using crisis theory and resiliency theory together help in working with a client.

Be sure to:

Identify and correctly reference the case study you have chosen.
Use literature to support your claims.
Use APA formatting and style.

Remember to double-space your paper.

Jake Levy

 Identifying Data: Jake Levy is a 31-year-old, married, Jewish Caucasian male. Jake’s wife, Sheri, is 28 years old. They have two sons, Myles (10) and Levi (8). The family resides in a two-bedroom condominium in a middle-class neighborhood in Rockville, MD. They have been married for 10 years.
Presenting Problem: Jake, an Iraq War veteran, came to the Veterans Affairs Health Care Center (VA) for services because his wife has threatened to leave him if he does not get help. She is particularly concerned about his drinking and lack of involvement in their sons’ lives. She told him his drinking has gotten out of control and is making him mean and distant. Jake reports that he and his wife have been fighting a lot and that he drinks to take the edge off and to help him sleep. Jake expresses fear of losing his job and his family if he does not get help. Jake identifies as the primary provider for his family and believes that this is his responsibility as a husband and father. Jake realizes he may be putting that in jeopardy because of his drinking. He says he has never seen Sheri so angry before, and he saw she was at her limit with him and his behaviors. Family Dynamics: Jake was born in Alabama to a Caucasian, Eurocentric family system. He reports his time growing up to have been within a “normal” family system. However, he states that he was never emotionally close to either parent and viewed himself as fairly independent from a young age. His dad had previously been in the military and was raised with the understanding that his duty is to support his country. His family displayed traditional roles, with his dad supporting the family after he was discharged from military service. Jake was raised to believe that real men do not show weakness and must be the head of the household. Jake’s parents are deceased, and he has a sister who lives outside London. He and his sister are not very close but do talk twice a year. Sheri is an only child, and although her mother lives in the area, she offers little support. Her mother never approved of Sheri marrying Jake and thinks Sheri needs to deal with their problems on her own. Jake reports that he has not been engaged with his sons at all since his return from Iraq, and he keeps to himself when he is at home. 
Employment History: Jake is employed as a human resources assistant for the military. Jake works in an office with civilians and military personnel and mostly gets along with people in the office. Jake is having difficulty getting up in the morning to go to work, which increases the stress between Sheri and himself. Shari is a special education teacher in a local elementary school. Jake thinks it is his responsibility to provide for his family and is having stress over what is happening to him at home and work. He thinks he is failing as a provider. Social History: Jake and Sheri identify as Jewish and attend a local synagogue on major holidays. Jake tends to keep to himself and says he sometimes feels pressured to be more communicative and social. Jake believes he is socially inept 11 and not able to develop friendships. The couple has some friends, since Shari gets involved with the parents in their sons’ school. However, because of Jake’s recent behaviors, they have become socially isolated. He is very worried that Sheri will leave him due to the isolation. 
Mental Health History: Jake reports that since his return to civilian life 10 months ago, he has difficulty sleeping, frequent heart palpitations, and moodiness. Jake had seen Dr. Zoe, a psychiatrist at the VA, who diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Dr. Zoe prescribed Paxil to help reduce his symptoms of anxiety and depression and suggested that he also begin counseling. Jake says that he does not really understand what PTSD is but thought it meant that a person who had it was “going crazy,” which at times he thought was happening to him. He expresses concern that he will never feel “normal” again and says that when he drinks alcohol, his symptoms and the intensity of his emotions ease. Jake describes that he sometimes thinks he is back in Iraq, which makes him feel uneasy and watchful. He hates the experience and tries to numb it. He has difficulty sleeping and is irritable, so he isolates himself and soothes this with drinking. He talks about always feeling “ready to go.” He says he is exhausted from being always alert and looking for potential problems around him. Every sound seems to startle him. He shares that he often thinks about what happened “over there” but tries to push it out of his mind. Nighttime is the worst, as he has terrible recurring nightmares of one particular event. He says he wakes up shaking and sweating most nights. He adds that drinking is the one thing that seems to give him a little relief. Educational History: Sheri has a bachelor’s degree in special education from a local college. Jake has a high school diploma but wanted to attend college upon his return from the military. Military History: Jake is an Iraqi War veteran. He enlisted in the Marines at 21 years old when he and Shari got married due to Sheri being pregnant. The family was stationed in several states prior to Jake being deployed to Iraq. Jake left the service 10 months ago. Sheri and Jake had used military housing since his marriage, making it easier to support the family. On military bases, there was a lot of social support and both Jake and Sheri took full advantage of the social systems available to them during that time. Medical History: Jake is physically fit, but an injury he sustained in combat sometimes limits his ability to use his left hand. Jake reports sometimes feeling inadequate because of the reduction in the use of his hand and tries to push through because he worries how the injury will impact his responsibilities as a provider, husband, and father. Jake considers himself resilient enough to overcome this disadvantage and “be able to do the things I need to do.” Sheri is in good physical condition and has recently found out that she is pregnant with their third child. Legal History: Jake and Sheri deny having criminal histories. Alcohol and Drug Use History: As teenagers, Jake and Sheri used marijuana and drank. Both deny current use of marijuana but report they still drink. Sheri drinks socially and has one or two drinks over the weekend. Jake reports that he has four to five drinks in the evenings during the week and eight to ten drinks on Saturdays and Sundays. Jake spends his evenings on the couch drinking beer and watching TV or playing video games. Shari reports that Jake drinks more than he realizes, doubling what Jake has reported. Strengths: Jake is cognizant of his limitations and has worked on overcoming his physical challenges. Jake is resilient. Jake did not have any disciplinary actions taken against him in the military. He is dedicated to his wife and family. Jake Levy: father, 31 years old Sheri Levy: mother, 28 years old Myles Levy: son, 10 years old Levi Levy: son, 8 years old
7 Social Work Theory and Practice for crisis, disaster, and Trauma page 117-130

Turner, F.J. (ED.) (2017). Social work treatment: Interlocking theoretical approaches (6th Ed.) New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

A crisis is “an acute emotional upset arising from situational, developmental, or socio- cultural sources and resulting in a temporary inability to cope by means of one’s usual problem-solving devices” (Hoff, Hallisey, & Hoff, 2009, p. 4). Parad and Parad (1990) expand upon this definition by describing a crisis as “an upset in a steady state, a turning point leading to better or worse, a disruption or breakdown in a person’s or family’s normal or usual pattern of functioning” (pp. 3–4).
As these definitions convey, crises take many forms, including the sudden death of a family member; a school shooting; poverty; a devastating hurricane or earthquake; homelessness; diagnosis of a chronic or life-threatening illness; job loss; sexual assault; family, domestic, and intimate partner violence; psychosis; divorce; retirement; physical and sexual abuse; rape or
sexual assault; a family’s immigration from a war-torn country; suicidality; and homocidality. While some social work practice settings specifically provide crisis intervention services such as hospital emergency rooms or mobile crisis programs, most social workers encounter crises, at various times, in all practice settings, with all client populations.
In response to a wide range of crises, traumatic events, and disasters, many people experience significant distress, do not function at their normal levels, and are in danger of ongoing dysfunction if they do not receive appropriate help in a timely way. In a similar manner, organizations and communities experience these reactions in response to crises and disaster. As is the case with the individuals within it, the organization or community’s continued health and ability to function effectively will
117

118
depend on receiving prompt and effective crisis intervention.
Danger and opportunity (Hoff, Hallisey, & Hoff, 2009; Knox & Roberts, 2008; Parad & Parad, 1990; Slaikeu, 1990), as represented by two symbols in the Chinese language for crisis, are two words that are frequently associated with crises. “Danger” describes the states of disequilibrium and vulnerability that can result from a crisis and the possibility that individuals will experience long-term distress and impaired functioning. “Opportunity” describes the unexpected possibilities that exist for growth and development when individuals discover previously unknown or underutilized resources and strengths within themselves or their support systems as a result of a crisis. This opportunity for growth results from the markedly increased abilities individuals have for developing alter- native coping mechanisms when they experience a crisis (Parad & Parad, 1990).
Crisis theory and intervention are historically integral to the social work profession. However, over the past decades, as a result of events such as the September 11, 2001, World Trade Center and other terrorist attacks, more frequent natural disasters related to climate change, and dramatic increases in school and violent mass shootings, social workers have increasingly been called upon to help people respond to a wide range of public emergencies (Mirabito, 2012; Patterson, 2009). Consequently, disaster mental health has become an area of expertise for social workers across all fields of practice, including in hospitals, schools, agencies, and within communities (Carp, 2010; Mirabito, 2012; Pomeroy, 2009).
As direct practice providers and as members of crisis teams, social workers are frequently leaders in providing crisis intervention ser- vices to individuals, families, and groups, as well as within organizations and communities. Therefore, in addition to crisis intervention skills for direct practice, it is equally important for social workers to develop an enlarged vision of practice that focuses on the strengths and resilience of individuals, organizations, and communities that have experienced chaos (Carp, 2010). As highlighted by Patterson (2009), social workers need skills in the pro- vision of micro interventions to assist victims
Social Work Treatment
and survivors of disaster, as well as mezzo and macro skills to intervene with complex systems and entire communities. As a result of the training and education social workers receive in both clinical and organizational responses to crisis and trauma, they are often better prepared than other professionals to provide crisis intervention in the aftermath of a traumatic event.
History of Crisis Theory and Intervention in Social Work
Crisis theory and crisis intervention have a rich history in the social work profession, which developed largely during the time period from the 1950s through the 1980s, in collaboration with leaders from other disciplines including psychiatry, psychology, and community and public health. Important contributions that led to the development of crisis theory included observations of soldiers in combat, research on grief and mourning, the expansion of suicide prevention programs, and the proliferation of crisis-oriented services resulting from federal policy initiatives to develop community mental health, disaster relief, and victim services.
Eric Lindemann and Gerald Caplan, both psychiatrists, were the first professionals to conceptualize and develop crisis theory and intervention and are considered the “pioneers” or “grandfathers” of this area of practice (Knox & Roberts, 2008). In 1944, Eric Lindemann, a com- munity psychiatrist affiliated with the Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, observed, evaluated, and treated 101 survivors and close relatives from the devastating 1942 Coconut Grove nightclub fire, which killed 493 people (Roberts, 2008). In his seminal paper, “Symptomatology and Management of Acute Grief,” Lindemann (1944) described a predictable sequence of stages during the grief process. He further established that the duration and severity of grief reactions depended on the success with which the bereaved were able to mourn their multiple losses (Knox & Roberts, 2008; Lindemann, 1944). One of Lindemann’s key contributions was his belief that clinical interventions prevented psychopathology, leading to his development of the first community mental health center for bereaved disaster victims and their families (Roberts, 2008).

19
Social Work Theory and Practice for Crisis, Disaster, and Trauma 119
Gerald Caplan, also a psychiatrist, built on Lindemann’s concepts about grief and mourning by extending our understanding about the significance and impact of normative and developmental life transitions and extraordinary traumatic events (James & Gilliland, 2013; Knox & Roberts, 2008; Regehr, 2011). Caplan (1981) is credited with advancing the field of preventive psychiatry and psychiatric consultation by developing community-based programs for early intervention of situational stress and also for training medical and mental health professionals to intervene in critical life transitions (Goldstein & Noonan, 1999; Roberts, 2008).
Observations of soldiers during World War II and the Korean and Vietnam wars who suffered from “combat fatigue” or “combat neurosis,” now conceptualized as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), led mental health practitioners to understand that soldiers who were exposed to traumatic events could be treated effectively with immediate, brief therapy, at or close to the front lines of battle (Goldstein & Noonan, 1999; Parad & Parad, 1990; Roberts, 2000).
Pivotal developments during the 1960s and 1970s included the expansion of community mental health services and suicide prevention hotlines, funded through the Community Mental Health Centers Act of 1963, which contributed significantly to the development of crisis intervention services. In 1958, Bellak developed the first psychiatric emergency 24- hour walk-in clinic in the United States at Elmhurst Hospital in New York City (Parad & Parad, 1990). Funding through the com- munity mental health movement established 24-hour emergency and crisis intervention ser- vices, which rapidly expanded from 376 centers across the country in 1969 to 796 centers in 1980 (Roberts, 2000). Suicide hotlines were first established in 1906 by the Salvation Army in London, England, and the National Save-a-Life League in New York City; between 1968 and 1972, almost 200 suicide prevention programs were established throughout the United States (Knox & Roberts, 2008; Roberts, 2000). Federal funding from the National Institute of Mental Health established the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, which provided support for brief crisis services to victims of disaster as well as training
for professionals who provided crisis intervention services (Parad & Parad, 1990).
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, social workers expanded upon the pioneering work of Lindemann and Caplan by further conceptualizing and integrating key concepts of cri- sis theory and intervention into social work practice. Rapoport (1962, 1967) advocated that clients have rapid access to crisis intervention services and developed the phases of engagement, assessment, and goal setting in crisis intervention services (Roberts, 2000). Golan (1978) delineated the components of “the crisis situation” (p. 7), described later in this chapter. Strickler (1965) identified similarities between crisis intervention and social casework and also recommended that the short-term, focused nature of crisis intervention required modifications in traditional casework practices. Parad & Caplan (1960) and Hill (1958) applied crisis theory and intervention to social work practice with families (Ell, 1996). Other important social work contributors included Kaplan (1962, 1968); Jacobsen, Strickler, and Morely (1968); and Smith (1978, 1979). Parad and Parad (1968a; 1968b) conducted a major descriptive study of 1,656 cases that provided evidence, from both clients’ and clinicians’ perspectives, that demonstrated planned, short-term crisis-oriented treatment as an effective intervention.
Key Concepts of Crisis Theory
Naomi Golan (1978) conceptualized the “crisis situation” (p. 7) as composed of five components: the hazardous event, the vulnerable state, the precipitating factor, the state of active crisis, and the stage of reintegration or crisis resolution (pp. 63–64). Golan described these five components of the “crisis situation.”
The Hazardous Event
The hazardous event is a specific stressful event occurring in a period of relative stability. Changing the previous state of stability, it may initiate a chain of events that further disrupt the previous state of equilibrium. Hazardous events can be anticipated and predictable, resulting in developmental crises, which are experienced during normative developmental stages such as adolescence, aging (adulthood) and retirement,

120
or the birth or adoption of a child. In contrast to developmental crises, situational crises are unanticipated or unexpected and are often sudden, such as job loss, parental divorce, sexual assault, sudden death, a school shooting, a hurricane, or a terrorist attack.
The Vulnerable State
The vulnerable state describes the individual’s immediate and longer-term response to the hazardous event. Common distressing reactions include anxiety, depression, mourning, shame, guilt, anger, and cognitive or perceptual confusion, as well as potentially positive feelings of hope, challenge, and excitement.
The Precipitating Factor
The precipitating factor is the “straw that breaks the camel’s back” (Golan, 1978, p. 66), or the factor in a chain of events that can convert the vulnerable state into a state of disequilibrium.
The State of Active Crisis
The state of active crisis describes the disequilibrium that occurs once an individual’s previous coping mechanisms have broken down. In this state, predictable responses are experienced, including physical, emotional, and cognitive imbalance, as well as preoccupation with the events that led to the crisis. During the state of active crisis, previous defensive and coping mechanisms are ineffective, and individuals are typically highly motivated to accept and utilize assistance. As aptly described by Rapoport (1967), “A little help, rationally directed and purposefully focused at a strategic time, is more effective than more extensive help given at a period of less emotional accessibility” (p. 38). Individuals do not remain in this state of active crisis indefinitely. The time frame for the state of active crisis is variable, though it is time- limited, often described as lasting from one day to four to six weeks (Regehr, 2011).
Two pathways lead to a state of active cri- sis: the precipitating factor can activate a previous vulnerable state that may have been caused by a prior hazardous event(s) or the precipitating factor may be same as the hazardous event. For example, the September 11th terrorist attacks were for some individuals the precipitating fac- tor that activated a vulnerable state created by
Social Work Treatment
a previous hazardous event(s), while for others, the September 11th terrorist attacks were the precipitating factor.
The Stage of Reintegration
or Crisis Resolution
The stage of reintegration or crisis resolution is the final component in the “crisis situation,” during which individuals struggle to master a cognitive perception of what has occurred, as well as release and accept feelings related to the crisis. In the final stage of reintegration and resolution, new patterns of coping are developed and environmental supports are identified and utilized, which can include access to, and use of, social work intervention (Mirabito & Rosenthal, 2002; Rosenthal-Gelman & Mirabito, 2005).
Key Concepts of Disaster Theory
“Disaster” is defined by Golan (1978) as “a collective stress situation in which many members of a social system fail to receive expected conditions of life, such as safety of the physical environment, protections from attack, provision of food, shelter, and income, and the guidance and information necessary to carry on normal activities” (p. 125). Disaster is followed by three predictable phases: (1) the impact, (2) recoil and rescue, and (3) recovery phases, (Hoff, Hallisey, & Hoff, 2009; Raphael, 2000).
Victims experience the reality of the disaster in the impact phase, during which they are concerned about their survival in the immediate present. One sees a wide variety of common reactions during this phase, ranging from people remaining calm and organized, to becoming shocked, confused, hysterical, and paralyzed with fear (Hoff, Hallisey, & Hoff, 2009). In the aftermath of a disaster, victims may be surprised that they were able to function as well as they did during the impact phase.
Rescue activities begin during the recoil and rescue phase. The wide range of common physical and emotional reactions during this phase includes denial, shock, numbness, flash- backs, nightmares, grief and sadness related to potentially devastating loss, anger, despair, and hopelessness (Raphael, 2000). Survivors of the disaster may feel relief and elation, though these reactions are difficult to accept if destruction

12
Social Work Theory and Practice for Crisis, Disaster, and Trauma 121
and devastation have occurred. “Survivor guilt” may be experienced if death or injury occurs that they were unable to prevent, or if they do not understand why they survived while others died (Lifton, 1982).
During the recovery phase, individuals and the community face the complex task of returning to a new state of “normal.” A primary goal during this prolonged phase is to regain a pre-crisis state of equilibrium. At the outset, individuals and communities may experience an outpouring of altruism and interpersonal connectedness in response to the disaster. Following this initial stage, referred to as the “honeymoon period,” a period of disillusionment frequently occurs in which realities of the devastation and loss brought about by the disaster must be faced and resolved (Mirabito & Rosenthal, 2002; Raphael, 2000).
Key Concepts About Trauma and Traumatic Events
Types of Trauma
Traumatic events are extraordinary situations that are likely to evoke significant distress in many people. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM- 5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), defines traumatic events as “exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence” (p. 271) by direct experience, witnessing it, learning that it occurred to others, or experiencing repeated exposure to the details of it. Traumatic events include exposure to war, physical assault, childhood physical abuse, threatened or actual sexual violence and abuse, being kidnapped or taken hostage, terrorist attacks, torture, natural or human-made disasters, and severe motor vehicle accidents (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 274).
Traumatic stressors may be discreet, one- time events, “Type I trauma”; or ongoing, chronic life circumstances, “Type II trauma.” Type I traumas are acute, “single-blow” traumatic events such as suicide, homicide, sudden accidental death, rape/sexual assault, acute ill- ness, transportation accidents, natural disasters, (e.g., tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and wildfires), and rare overwhelming events,
such as school shootings, hostage takeovers, or terrorist attacks.
Type II trauma, also known as “complex trauma,” is defined as multiple, repetitive, and continuous trauma (Terr, 1991), such as ongoing physical or sexual abuse, domestic violence, community violence, war, genocide, experiences of combat or concentration camps, being a prisoner-of-war, or the victim of political torture (Courtois & Ford, 2009). Type II trauma may be perpetrated by an individual known by, or related to, the victim, and can be accompanied by a betrayal of trust in primary relation- ships (Courtois & Ford, 2009). Complex trauma can have significantly detrimental effects on emotional and behavioral regulation and stability; the ability to think, learn, and concentrate; impulse control; self-image; and attachment relationships with others. Complex trauma is associated with a wide range of problems, including addiction, chronic physical conditions, depression and anxiety, self-harming behaviors, and other psychiatric disorders (National Child Traumatic Stress Network, http://www.nctsn.org,
2014). Treatment for complex trauma includes a range of trauma-specific service models for children, adolescents, and adults (Jennings, 2008). For example, trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) is an evidence-based approach for the treatment of complex trauma that develops resiliency-based coping skills with children and adolescents and utilizes active parental involvement to support the treatment goals (Cohen, Mannarino, & Murray, 2011).
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a syn- drome of persistent reactions following a traumatic stressor that is diagnosed when a combination of symptoms in four categories have persisted for one month or more and when the disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The four categories of post-traumatic symptoms identified in the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) include: (1) intrusion symptoms, (2) persistent avoidance, (3) negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and (4) hyperarousal and reactivity.

12
122
Intrusion symptoms include recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive distressing memories of the traumatic event, such as distressing dreams, intense psychological distress or physiological reactions to internal or external cues (triggers) related to the traumatic event, and dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks, dreams, nightmares) in which individuals can visualize the traumatic event and feel as if it is happening again (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Dissociation can serve as a protective mechanism in the aftermath of a traumatic event to shield the individual from the full realization of the horror that has occurred. With dissociation, the individual is unable to remember details of a traumatic event, or experiences numbness or disbelief that the trauma occurred.
Persistent avoidance includes conscious and purposeful avoidance of distressing memories, thoughts, and feelings, and of situations, places, and people associated with the traumatic event. In efforts to avoid strong feelings that may be overwhelming, individuals may be reluctant to return to places where a trauma occurred and may consciously avoid talking about a traumatic event.
Negative alterations in cognitions and mood
include:
Inability to remember an important aspect of the traumatic event(s); Exaggerated negative beliefs about oneself, others, or the world; Persistent, distorted cognitions about the cause or consequences of the traumatic event that lead the individual to blame himself/herself or others; Persistent negative emotional states (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, shame); Decreased interest or participation in significant activities; Feelings of detachment from others; Inability to experience positive emotions. (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, pp. 271–272)
Hyperarousal and reactivity symptoms include alterations in arousal and reactivity associated with the traumatic event. Symptoms include “Irritable behavior and angry out- bursts; Reckless or self-destructive behavior; Hypervigilance; Exaggerated startle response; Problems with concentration; Sleep disturbance” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 272). In the aftermath of a traumatic stressor, people frequently report having difficulty sleeping, an increased startle reflex, and
Social Work Treatment
“jumpiness” or anxiety, including fear that the traumatic event could happen again.
Acute stress disorder (ASD) includes the same symptoms as PTSD; however, symptoms are present for three days to one month following exposure to the traumatic event. The DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) includes distinct criteria for symptoms and reactions pertaining to children six years old and younger. Frequently, PTSD coexists with other psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, depression, conduct disorders, and sub- stance abuse. As described by Santucci (2012), “While comorbidity among psychiatric disorders is high, with PTSD it appears to be the rule rather than the exception” (p. 124).
Many traumatic events include the threat or actuality of death, and almost all deaths involve trauma as well as grief. Many of these deaths are by suicide, homicide, or sudden accidents, and many involve violence, which can elicit both trauma and grief reactions. When grief and post-traumatic symptoms are both present, post-traumatic reactions must be attended to first, before the grieving process can proceed (Nader, 1997).
Reactions to Trauma and Predictors of Distress
Although traumatic events are defined as extraordinary situations that are likely to evoke significant distress in a large proportion of the population, many individuals experience only mild, transient responses and symptoms in response to trauma. For those who are resilient in the face of traumatic events and do not develop post-traumatic symptoms, stress can lead to adaptive and constructive psycho- logical growth (Bonanno, 2004). While many people who experience positive outcomes from traumatic events utilize social work intervention and support, others handle traumatic stress with their own natural support systems (Mirabito & Callahan, 2016).
Three key variables that predict the intensity of post-traumatic reactions are the meaning of the event to the individual, the amount of past exposure to trauma, and the level of social sup- port available (Webb, 1994). The meaning that an individual attaches to a traumatic event

123
Social Work Theory and Practice for Crisis, Disaster, and Trauma 123
is particularly important in predicting and understanding her or his response (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Individuals who attach malignant meanings to traumatic events have higher levels of distress, while those who are able to find benevolent or positive meanings in these events fare better. Furthermore, there appears to be a natural inclination to try to find some positive meaning in the aftermath of a trauma, and eventually many people find satisfaction in having survived and in having done the best they could under the circumstances.
Another key factor that has an impact on the outcome of traumatic experiences is the amount of prior trauma an individual has experienced. Individuals who have experienced multiple traumas, a lack of family support, or other risk factors such as mental health or other emotional concerns are more likely to be severely affected by trauma. Conversely, individuals who have protective factors, such as stable and supportive environments, and who possess the personal qualities of “resilience” or “hardiness” are better able to withstand stressful events.
Finally, social support plays an important role in protecting an individual from the severest impact of traumatic stress. Numerous studies of normative and traumatic stress have demonstrated that individuals with supportive families and friends cope with trauma more effectively than those without supportive social networks.
Social Work Intervention
in Crises, Trauma, and Disasters
Practice Principles for Crisis Intervention
Parad and Parad (1990) define crisis intervention as “A process for actively influencing psychosocial functioning during a period of disequilibrium in order to alleviate the immediate impact of disruptive stressful events and to help mobilize the capabilities and resources of the persons affected by the crisis” (p. 4). Goals of crisis intervention include managing the immediate crisis, and strengthening the coping and problem-solving strategies of the individual, family, group, organization, or community for the future. The practitioner intervenes at whatever level is necessary—micro, mezzo, or
macro-to help the client system return to the previous state of equilibrium. As noted earlier, while the goal of crisis intervention is to return to the pre-crisis level of functioning, some individuals achieve either a higher or lower level of functioning in the aftermath of a crisis.
Crisis intervention uses the strengths perspective that is central to social work practice to help individuals mobilize their own strengths, assets, and capacities as well as to identify the resources and supports that exist in their environments, including within families, social networks, neighborhoods, and communities. In combination with the strengths perspective, an empowerment approach is used to help clients access and use inner and environmental resources. Ego psychological techniques are also utilized to assess the individual’s level of functioning, coping, and adaptation (Mirabito & Rosenthal, 2002).
Consistent with the social work strengths and empowerment approaches and ego psychology concepts, intervention in situations of cri- sis, trauma, and disaster employs the following key practice principles (Ell, 1996; Rosenthal- Gelman & Mirabito, 2005):
• Help is provided immediately, including out- reach to populations who may not otherwise seek assistance. For example, in the case of a school shooting or natural disaster affecting the entire community, active outreach, such as home visits to isolated residents or holding community meetings, may be provided to reach all community members who are in need.
• Interventions at the time of the crisis or disaster are time-limited and brief. Since the “cri- sis state” is time-limited, often lasting four to six weeks, interventions are focused on the immediate crisis with referral for longer-term services, as needed.
• The social worker takes an active, often directive, role in helping efforts. During the assessment process, the practitioner engages quickly and explores sensitive and potentially difficult areas, such as abuse and neglect, violence, suicidality, and dying or death.
• The primary goal of intervention is the reduction of symptoms and a return to the earlier state of equilibrium. While the focus

124
124
of intervention is on the immediate problems, crises can reactivate past, unresolved problems, and provide a “second chance” to rework earlier problems reactivated by the current crisis (Goldstein & Noonan, 1999; Mirabito & Rosenthal, 2002).
• Interventions include a combination of counseling to handle emotional concerns, the pro- vision of practical information and concrete community resources, and the mobilization of social and environmental support systems.
• The expression of feelings, symptoms, and worries is encouraged. Intervention strategies such as education, clarification, and reassurance about the normative, expectable reactions to crisis and trauma help individuals reduce their intense fear …
What Is “Resilience”?

Resilience is a concept that has gradually become more familiar in social work and human services, but it also has currency in many other fields of human endeavor: in engineering, provision of physical infrastructure, earthquake safety planning, crisis management in the face of natural disasters, etc. (Hayward, 2013; Chang, 2014, Bruneau et al., 2003). It also has relevance in disciplines such as sociology (Lockie, 2016), psychology (Masten, 2001), political science (Zebrowski, 2013), gerontology (Windle, 2011), and in a variety of fields of human service practice such as palliative care (Vanistendael, 2007), com- munity development (Chaskin, 2008), and the care of young homeless people (Kidd and Davidson, 2007).
Resilience as it relates to social work may broadly be understood as “doing better than expected in the face of adversity.” Like many meaningful concepts, resilience is not easily defined precisely. Another concept that presents such challenges is that of “beauty.” No one would deny the value or relevance of the word “beauty.” But there may be many opinions and cultural variations as to what is considered beauty. The word speaks to and enriches human experience. Arguably, the word “resilience” has a similar capacity to convey something powerful that can be recognized in many cultures, even if understood or expressed in a range of ways. While the term “resilience” grows in popularity and usage in the human services, there is still no widely shared and precise understanding. The phrase in the opening sentence of this
441

42
442
paragraph conveys something of its sense, yet it also betrays a certain vagueness. This gives rise to certain questions: What is meant by “adversity?” Does the intensity or duration of adversity matter? What is meant by “doing better?” What is the comparator—doing better com- pared to what or whom? Is it that the person is doing better now than before, or is it that the person is managing to get back on track more or less as they were before the adversity? Or is it that the person is doing better than their peers who are broadly in the same boat, or are they doing better than those peers generally? Whose view is reflected in the notion of “expected?” The term “resilience” may quite literally raise many questions. But this chapter will seek to show the reader that it is a rewarding term that more than repays efforts to better understand how it plays out in real life. The concept sheds important new light on the nature of helping and social work practice.
There seems to be increasing consensus on a number of points relating to resilience in the research literature (Vanderbilt-Adriance & Shaw, 2008), for example:
Resilience is not a trait.
Resilience is not static. It fluctuates according to shifting circumstances.
It is more helpful to think of resilience as
relating to specific domain (e.g., educational outcomes) rather than as relating to global (overall) outcomes for a person.
It does not follow that resilience in one domain will carry over to other domains.
What Is “Adversity?”
“Adversity” is a core concept in thinking about resilience, since the notion of resilience requires its companion of adversity: someone displays resilience in the face of a given adversity, or set of adversities.
As it relates to social work or human serv- ice practice, adversity rarely takes a single form, or occurs in isolation. Typically, it may interact with certain surrounding circumstances, and these may sometimes serve to aggravate (or at other times to mitigate) the effects of the source of adversity. Adversity may arise from a single
Social Work Treatment
(one-off) event. This may have the effect of an unexpected shock: a natural disaster such as a tsunami; an unexpected death of a loved one. Adversity may also arise from chronic conditions: chronic hardship arising from poverty or other major stressors or an interaction between many such stressors over time. It is also the case, of course, that the line may become blurred between these two categories. The unexpected death of a lone parent may lead to chronic adversity where sources of support or income are scarce. The shock of losing a job may lead to the chronic problem of unemployment where the local labor market is weak, or where there is low demand for the skills the person has. Resilient adaptation in the face of the immediate shock of job loss may well be different from adaptation in response to the ongoing and possibly permanent state of chronic unemployment and associated loss of income. Chronic adversity may, of course, also leave one more exposed to shocks. For example poor people may be forced to live in places with a higher chronic risk of severe flooding, or live in relatively fragile structures in trailer parks where severe weather may have very destructive effects. Alternatively, where living conditions are good and support is high before and after a shock, its impact may gradually be contained over time, and “normal” life may be more easily restored—to some extent at least.
In considering all these issues, let us take the concrete example of a young person’s progress in school. A child’s progress in school goes into decline in the face of an episode of extended sexual abuse by a household member, leading eventually to placement in foster care. The placement means that the child has to change schools, and gradually shows recovery in terms of attainment in school. Since abuse and placement are known to be associated frequently with poorer school performance, the child’s recovery may be said to reflect (educational) resilience in the face of the adversity of sexual abuse—and the sur- rounding circumstances of the case. This last phrase is noteworthy. As social workers know well, problems rarely occur in isolation. There is a context—surrounding circumstances—to a problem, which may aggravate or mitigate the impact of a problem such as sexual abuse. The impact of abuse may be influenced by the nature

43
Resilience Theory
and intensity of abuse, the pre-abuse levels of support and difficulties in the child’s life, and the level of support on adjusting to life after the extended episode of abuse has finally ended.
Just as the potential impact of abuse relates to the wider context in the scenario, so, too, do the prospects for resilience. But determining the presence or absence of resilience is not a simple matter. Is the “test” of resilience in this example to be recovery to the extent that the child is back on track with pre-abuse levels of performance, or that s/he is doing better than that, or the s/ he is achieving better than the average performance for children in care? These difficulties in definition do not make the concept of resilience meaningless or irrelevant for social work practice—certainly not—but they do remind us of the need for some cautious reflection on how we interpret the term as social workers.
Another example from the field of disaster recovery may help to shine light on some of these issues. Researchers in the field of engineering have suggested that resilience implies both “ the ability to adjust to ‘normal’ or anticipated levels of stress and to adapt to sudden shocks and extraordinary demands” (Bruneau et al., 2003). While allowing for the differences between the fields of engineering and the social or human sciences, the proposed definition from our engineering colleagues seems to have at least some relevance for social work. Yet implied notions of “recovery” may be more slippery than they first appear. Positive adaptation in the early days after the disaster may be gradually replaced by decline in the longer term as the full implications of the loss are grasped, and as immediate support that has rallied begins to wane. This example highlights the relevance of the passage of time in assessing response to stress or resilience. And in extreme conditions, the very act of survival may be a sign of resilience. To preserve the human spirit, to find fragments of hope, may be an act of defiance in the face of adversity. Survival may rightly be seen as a sign of resilience in the immediate aftermath of disaster or violent conflict, but living in ruins, forgotten and without the means to build a new future or eke out a daily livelihood, is likely to drain any sense of resilience from the morale and capacity of the people affected
443
For a time in my teaching, I used a UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) photo from the Philippines of a nine-year-old girl from an impoverished family who lived on a huge, smoldering, toxic dump in Manila searching for items of value. What clearer example of absolute poverty could there be? Here was unambiguous adversity. Yet the photographer caught the child jumping up and down playfully on the broken sofa and smiling broadly. The image was in marked contrast to her surrounding reality. And for some time, I liked to use this image in presentations to help illustrate human capacity to transcend adversity, how the human spirit could shine through even in the most unlikely circumstances. But gradually, it became clear to me through discussion and reading that the passage of time was a crucial dimension in any consideration of the concept of resilience. The child was jumping with joy in the image of the photograph. It was good that she had this moment of joy, but the fragmentary moment captured in the photograph did not necessarily represent proof of resilience. She could be truly said to show resilience if she managed to transcend aspects of adversity linked to life on the dump in an enduring rather than fleeting way. She would show resilience if, over time, she showed better health outcomes, or more educational progress than might have been expected.
This example raises another issue—how to assess or measure any display of resilience. For many users of the term, resilience is not a subjective experience proven by claim; it is not enough for the person to lay claim to positive responses to an adverse set of circumstances. A subjective sense of positive adaptation in the actor or observer is not necessarily sufficient to justify the claim of “resilience.” Many adherents would also expect some additional “independent,” measurable evidence or data beyond the self-report of the person involved or observing. From their perspective, seeing the joy in the moment of the girl on the sofa, or hearing her positive outlook or account close to that moment, falls short in two ways. It falls short on the “passage of time” test, and on the “presence of corroborating independent evidence” test. And yet, is there also not something important to acknowledge in her moment of enjoyment? Perhaps the memory or expectation of such

4
444
moments helps sustain her and helps disrupt a narrative of complete decline and defeat. In a study of children living as domestic laborers in Nepal, a number of them reported finding support and hope in the occasional experience of religious festivals (Veitch, Dharel, & Ojha, 2014). These occasional positive “escapes” from day-to-day challenges helped them survive daily life. The memory and prospect of participation in the community event of the religious festival helped sustain their positive sense of self through the often-challenging times in between.
While objective indicators of resilient adaptation are clearly very relevant, it is also important (for social workers, especially) to appreciate the significance of subjective experiences that may provide sustenance in the face of extreme adversity. Head of medicine for the International Committee of the Red Cross, Paul Bouvier (2012) gives powerful examples of how seemingly inconsequential items or experiences could help prisoners held under extreme conditions to continue to find positive meaning (and dignity) in the face of deep adversity. (Such examples include well-thumbed pictures of beloved people or places, cards, perfumes, etc.). This is a reminder that support may take many forms—the physical daily presence of a helpful person, but alternatively, a memory or some other image or symbol of inspiration. In the case of physical items, they seem to be important in evoking memories of connections to valued people or contexts. They may also serve to reassure the person of their worth, dignity, and essential humanity. Again, the notion of disrupting a narrative comes to mind as an essential idea in relation to resilience. The power of these disruptions lies in how they reassure the person that there are exceptions, that the negative narrative is not all-consuming; that, at the least, there are little symbolic and practical glimpses of an alternative to the oppressive reality of their daily routine. Those glimpses can help sustain the resistance (and resilience) of the person in the face of the adversity reflected in the dominant narrative. Anyone or anything that serves to disrupt negative “master narratives” may become a source of resilience, how- ever simple or “peripheral” that source may seem to the onlooker.
Social Work Treatment
Each discipline may relate to resilience in its own way. Perhaps part of the social work connection to resilience is to value the moments of disruptive resilience as well as the more trans- formative and enduring changes that may sometimes flow from supportive relationships.
A social work student of mine had a field placement in a general hospital. On his own initiative, he brought some music tapes to an elderly patient with whom he was working. In this thoughtful and generous gesture, the student was showing his own very personal concern for the patient, but in acknowledging their shared love of music, the student was also helping to disrupt the master narrative of sick patient that may threaten to envelop an older person in hospital. The opportunity to listen to music helped disrupt that narrative and restored to the per- son the social role of music aficionado, a role also much valued throughout the wider com- munity. This is not to mention the immediate pleasure and uplift from the direct experience of listening to the music. The music may have helped the person have an even brief experience of resilience in which he was better placed to face illness. For a social worker, the value of resilience lies, arguably, in its subjective experience in the moment, as much as in its objective, measurable endurance over time. Even a terminally ill patient may display and experience resilience.
People who hold significance in terms of promoting resilience in others may exert influence through “real-time” interactions. But there are various examples to show that memories of the remembered person’s qualities and values may also be a positive influence despite later physical distance between the “influencer” and the “influenced.” The power of memories does not contradict the general point of the influence of present experience. It is those memories that are alive and especially meaningful in the present that exert influence. Memories may reside in the individual or be shared within a family or com- munity. They may often exert resilience related influence.
There is striking research evidence on how aboriginal communities in Canada with stronger active connections to cultural traditions (shared cultural memories) showed more resilience in the face of the threat of youth

45
Resilience Theory
suicide. Cultural continuity seemed some- how to contribute to the young person finding a self-continuity at a personal level (Lalonde, 2006). The rate of youth suicide was virtually zero in tribes that had retained a command of their traditional language (Hallett, Chandler, & Lalonde, 2007). Such studies illustrate how too narrow a focus on the individual may obscure the importance of powerful cultural and social forces at play in the scenario.
Young people may be influenced in their behavior by commitments made to parents before their death, or a sense of duty to the parent they have lost. One young woman who had gone on to grow up in care recalled at a training conference how her mother had asked her to study hard because of her natural ability, and how this advice had elicited a commitment that decisively shaped her later educational progress – a truly turning point experience in her life. The young woman had gone on to exercise her own agency in grasping the opportunity presented by her mother’s advice and encouragement (Gilligan, 2009). Another young woman with drug problems and other difficulties reported that she had found motivation to change her life when a friend reminded her that her late father would not have approved of her problem behaviors. Her sense of duty, no doubt partly instilled by her late father, served as a source of resilience (and resistance) in the face of a narrative with otherwise negative prospects (Markova, Tomov, Alexandrov, Katzarova, Marinova, & Mateeva, 2014).
In considering the relevance of support for resilience, it is important to appreciate that support may take many forms and come from many sources. A person may find support in the actual or expected actions of others, family, friends, neighbors, etc.; they may offer help and encouragement. But people may also draw support from the meanings they give to, or find in, experience, or in patterns of behavior, of traditions, of beliefs of their own, or of their community.
Belief in God proved powerfully sustaining, according to the accounts of a sample of unaccompanied minors far from their home culture. Typically living with many challenges of uncertainty about their future legal status, isolation from family networks, and so on, they clearly
445
experienced belief in God as giving continuity and meaning and some form of certainty (Ni Raghallaigh & Gilligan, 2010).
There may be other experiences which help to cultivate potential resilience, for example, positive experiences in recreation, education or work. One example is the benefits flowing to vulnerable children through participation in therapeutic horse riding (Burgon, 2011) or other youth development activities (Sanders, Munford, Thimasarn-Anwar, Liebenberg & Ungar, 2015). There is evidence across different cultural contexts that positive experiences in school may provide valuable resilience enhancing opportunities (Liebenberg, Theron, Sanders, Munford, van Rensburg, Rothmann, & Ungar, 2016). A further example is how opportuni- ties to acquire work skills and experience may prove transformative for young people in care (Berridge, 2014; Arnau-Sabates and Gilligan, 2015). The thread connecting these positive experiences is often a positive relationship they offer the young person with influential others carers, volunteers, professionals or other positive actors. There is strong evidence that relationships and positive activities are linked to resilience (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 2015).
Reflecting on Adversity
Social workers need to be sensitive to the nature of adversity involved, to the different implications of chronic adversity and traumatic events (Bonanno & Diminich, 2013). A key issue is also the level or intensity of adversity. Adversity may generate different levels of risk with different implications for the degree, if any, of potential resilience. High and especially extreme levels of risk may make resilience less likely. So, too, may the presence of cumulative (multiple) risk factors (Vanderbilt-Adriance & Shaw, 2008). The degree of adversity may affect the potential for resilience. For one person, it may become possible to transcend the adversity, but not for another. The difference may be due to the level of meaningful support they can access as they negotiate their way through adversity. The nature of such support may vary, and in some cases may seem very modest. In other circumstances, finding fragments of experience

46
446
and support that sustain hope and positive meaning in oppressive circumstances may be a source of survival, of resistance, and of resilience (Bouvier, 2012). In considering why some people display “more” resilience in certain circumstances, one must remember that it does not necessarily mean they are “stronger” in terms of a trait of resilience. Adherents of a less global and static view of resilience would hold that differences in levels of displayed resilience may be more a reflection of differences in the “fit” between the person, the circumstances, and the nature of support flowing to them in that context. The person displaying resilience may happen to have a good fit between their circumstances and available support; the person without a display of resilience may lack such a fit.
Rutter (2012) reminds us of a critical point: research has established beyond doubt that there is huge variation in how individuals respond to adversity. This insight challenges deterministic assumptions that certain types of adversity necessarily produce automatic, predictable, or negative effects on those exposed. Instead, each individual responds in their own unique way to a given adversity. The die is not cast in the face of adversity. Indeed, Rutter suggests that adversity may sometimes produce a ‘steeling’ effect, thus making the person affected stronger. There is no certainty as to how each person will respond. This is actually a very powerful message and central to the importance and relevance of resilience. That notion of variable responses to adversity opens the door to uncertainty. That uncertainty becomes a potential seedbed for resilience; it becomes a basis for “reasonable hope”—an important companion in thinking about or “doing” resilience. Weingarten (2010) has argued the case for the value of embracing “reasonable hope” as a relational practice between helper and client, because “the future is not determined but can be influenced.” Adversity leads to uncertain outcomes. The future is not determined in some predictable way by a given adversity in a given scenario. This uncertainty leaves open the possibility that what happens next (after adversity) can be influenced. This implies, in turn, the potential for better outcomes than might be expected. Such “reasonable hope” opens the mind to the possibility of resilience and to practice that searches for and supports its possible emergence.
Social Work Treatment
How Does Resilience Relate to Other Theories Relevant to Social Work?
Several key concepts familiar from psychology and social sciences are relevant to our under- standing of resilience. Resilience is widely understood as arising from support found in relationships. Based on their study of the life- time implications of childhood maltreatment, Collishaw et al. (2007) observe that “‘it was those individuals with good relationship experiences across different domains and across childhood, adolescence and adulthood who were particularly likely to demonstrate resilience” (p. 226).
The field of social work is familiar with the concept of attachment theory, which posits the value of dyadic attachment relationships—typically manifesting powerful bonds of commitment; as in the example, for attachment theory, of the prototypical relationship between a parental caregiver and child. While not discounting the value of these relationships, resilience thinking reminds us of the value of wider and less powerful relationships that may exist in a person’s social network, the net of relationship connections that most people may have in their lives.
Social capital is an important but “slippery” set of theories about the qualities of relation- ships between people in a network. Social capital is broadly about the reciprocal obligations and commitments that may be felt to exist towards sharing forms of information and sup- port with others. Social capital theory suggests that in certain types of relations the actors feel duty-bound to offer help or to respond positively to such requests. To not offer such help would be to step outside the bounds of accept- able behavior in the community. There is a further incentive to offer help. The “deal” in such relationships is that, if I help you today, you owe me similar help tomorrow; not literally, but the “debt” incurred reinforces the sense of mutual obligation into the future. Social capital may be said to flow, under the right conditions, through certain connections and to lie waiting to be tapped. Social capital offers a useful counter- balance to attachment theory, suggesting that even “weak” relationships may have considerable value under certain conditions or in a given

474
Resilience Theory
context. Social capital theorists have shown how “weak ties” may be influential in helping people find employment (Granovetter, 1973) or in coping in the aftermath of a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans (Hawkins & Maurer, 2010).
The relevance of concepts such as social net- work and social capital to understanding resilience reminds us how “social” or “relational” the concept of resilience actually is. Rather than being a personal trait, resilience flows from a person’s relationship with one or more people, and it may be a quality also observable in wider groupings such as families or communities. Family structure manifested in processes and rituals such as regular shared mealtimes have been shown to be associated with resilience or better outcomes for children growing up in families affected by parental alcoholism (Velleman & Orford, 1999).
Resilience thinking has value for social work practice in a number of ways. It is a reminder of the potential for change in a given practice scenario. It remains open to the possibility that a person may prove able to break free of a “gloomy script.” It highlights the power of “small things,” how even seemingly “small” fragments of experience or elements in an overall profile may prove to exert considerable influence on subsequent progress in a person’s life. It is too easy sometimes to overlook how seemingly marginal or small things may have an impact. One such example of the huge power of small things comes from aviation, where accident investigations often uncover some very subtle error or incident that has had huge consequences. The withdrawal of the supersonic plane Concorde from commercial service globally was linked to a fatal crash in Paris. The cause of the crash was linked in turn to traces of broken parts on the runway that had fallen unnoticed from an earlier departing plane, which the ill-fated Concorde aircraft had somehow “ingested” into its engines. The story underlines the message that small things may sometimes have big consequences. Resilience thinking emphasizes the same point, but with a more positive twist. Unlike the Concorde story, resilience thinking encourages the idea that small things may sometimes have positive and substantial consequences for an individual or more widely.
447
A case example from a remarkable social science research study illustrates powerfully the how change may come unexpectedly and from apparently “small things.” Laub and Sampson (2003) reported on the latest and probably final wave of long-term research on the adult lives of a cohort of young delinquents in the United States. The study has now tracked the young men into old age. It is a longitudinal study involving many authors over a number of generations in its nearly 50-year span. The study sought to investigate whether young men who had been delinquent in their teens remained in crime or desisted in later life. In reality, the study revealed both tendencies, and also a group who moved back and forth. Those who desisted often physically broke ties with negative influences (by moving) and often found an influential positive relationship through marriage or other means. One of the cases is a powerful illustration of how resilience may play out over one lifetime. The participant, “Gilbert,” was now aged 70 and had been sent to a reform school as a teenager and had been assigned to the electrical workshop where he met “Jack,” who was in charge. Recalling Jack all these years later, Gilbert remembered that
… he loved amateur radio. And he got me interested in radio and electrical stuff and things of that nature… He saw the potentials in me. He saw I enjoyed electricity. I enjoyed radio and stuff like that. He took me under his wing. And I thought an awful lot of this guy in a short ten months I worked with him. He was a prince. I prepared my whole life in ten months to do something. Think about it. Those ten months were crucial in my life. Because they turned me around. [Name of prison] turned me around. Jack turned me around. Jack was a humaniarian and cared for me as an individual. Let’s get down to brass tacks. What if Jack wasn’t there? What if I wasn’t offered the opportunity? … He treated me right. As a matter of fact, after I left [name of prison] year after year on a yearly basis I would take my wife and kids, we’d drive all the way to [name of prison] to see Jack. …