貧窮學童復原力發展之個案研究
陳雅鈴 國立屏東教育大學幼教系 摘要 台灣近年來貧窮人數增加，越來越多的學童淪為經濟弱勢的族群。雖然，許多研究 均指出，貧窮對學童有許多負面的影響，但許多復原力的研究亦指出，有些貧窮學童 能在逆境發展出對抗困境的復原力，表現優異。本研究目的即是在探討貧窮學童發展 復原力的過程及過程中重要的影響因素。本研究以深度訪談及觀察的方式進行調查， 共９位榮獲總統教育獎的貧困學童參與此研究。結果發現，貧窮學童復原力的發展歷 程通常會經歷不知所措、不適應、及復原力發展三個階段。促使學童發展出復原力的 要素及其複雜的交互關係在研究中有詳細的討論。研究結果建議，應推動貧窮學童介 入計劃，全面評估貧窮學童所面對的不利因子及潛在資源，以便發展適宜的介入策略。In recent years, the number of poor people is increasing gradually. Many children have become poverty. Although many studies has indicated that poverty has negative influence on children, many resilience studies show that children with resilience have overcome the adversity of poverty and perform excellent in many fields. The main purpose of this study was to explore how poor children develop resilience and to analyze the related factors. In this study, nine children, who were awarded the president educational prizes, were main participants. I used in-depth interview and observation as main research methods. The results showed that children often went through three stages: “a loss stage”, “maladjusted stage”, and “resilience-developing stage” to fully develop resilience. The influential factors of these three stages were discussed in this study. The results suggested that intervention should include an overall evaluation of risk factors and potential resources to develop optimal intervention strategies and to help children develop resilience.
關鍵字：貧窮、復原力、多元文化教育、早期介入
壹、緒論
根據行政院主計處在民國九十二年的統計，台閩地區九十一年底經核定之低收入 戶為 70，417 戶，占總戶數之 1.0 ％（行政院主計處，2003）。光是 2002 年，我國就 有 2700 個家庭，6221 名學童向家扶申請經濟扶助，平均每天增加七名兒童淪為經濟 弱勢 (聯合報，2003)。這種貧窮戶數增加及貧富差距持續惡化的現象，已嚴重影響到 許多兒童的學習與成長。目前，國內針對貧窮問題的研究，大都由社會福利的角度來 切入，相關的補救措施亦多由社會福利的角度來做。然而，光是金錢的補助及消極的 問題補救似乎是不足的。目前，有許多復原力的相關研究指出，貧窮學童有能力在逆 境中成長茁壯，發展出對抗困境的復原力。如果研究中所指稱的「復原力」是貧窮學 童在逆境中成長的主要力量，那麼，復原力是如何形成的？其發展過程為何？主要影 響因素又為何？筆者希望藉由此研究，對復原力成因及發展過程有深入之了解，做為 進一步規劃貧窮學童介入計劃的參考。貳、文獻探討
何謂貧窮？在學術及政策上，最常用來評定「貧窮」的準則就是依據家庭的收入 水準來判定。例如：台灣認定低收入戶的標準是依據該戶內平均每人每月收入來計算。 當一戶平均每人每月收入低於當地最低生活所需費用時，就可列為低收入戶。例如： 根據八十六年十一月修訂通過的「社會救助法」中規定，「最低生活費用標準」乃依各 地區平均消費支出的六成訂定之。以台灣民國九十二年度最低生活費用來說，台灣省 為 8，426 元，高雄市 9，712 元，台北市為 13，313 元。若一戶平均每人每月收入在 當地低於這些標準時，就可列為當地之低收入戶。而台灣普遍使用的官訂貧窮門檻則 為接近各地所得中位數的 50%，即可列為貧窮戶 (中央研究院經濟研究所，1996)。 貧窮對於學童有何不利影響呢？貧窮對學童所造成的不利影響是多重且深遠的， 這些不利因素包括：父母失業、單親、不穩定的生活、不好的家庭生活環境、父母暴 力、不好的社區環境、貧瘠的物質環境等等。這些不利因素，不僅限制家庭發揮它的 正常功能，並對兒童在社會、情緒、及認知上產生不良影響 (Brook-Gunn, Duncan & Aber, 1997; Fraser, Richman & Galinsky, 1999; Huston, 1991; McLoyd, 1998; Secombe, 2000;童認知的發展 (Smith, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1997)，較有可能產生心理失調
(Farmer, Burns, Angold, Erkanli & Costello, 1997)，及行為與情緒問題 (Bolger, Patterson, Thompson & Kupersmidt, 1995)。
對其教養非常用心，掌控得較為嚴格。然而，S2 本身對自己並不太有自信心亦極度沒 有安全感。因此，許多的事情，母親均代為想辦法解決，而使得 S2 在許多事情上較 依賴母親。S2 對於母親的依賴使得其對母親的關愛非常敏感，常覺得母親對弟弟較為 關注，而導致有一段時間必需求助於心理諮商師，以排解情緒上的問題。因此，社會 的支持若沒有搭配個人及家庭的一些提昇因子，可能會導致於個人及家庭對於社會支 持的過度依賴，反而變得無法獨立自主解決問題。雖然某些提昇因子只在特定情況下， 伴隨其他提昇因子的出現，才較能發揮作用，但有些提昇因子則是普遍性的具有提昇 學童復原力的作用。這些提昇因子主要包括正向的社會支援及學校經驗。正向的社會 支持及學校經驗普遍存在於所有案例生活經驗當中，可以增進學童及其家庭的人際關 係、自信心、自我能力、及情緒穩定性。 在提昇因子的交互作用中，有些提昇因子扮演著極重要的中介性角色。也就是說， 其他提昇因子必需依賴具有中介作用的提昇因子出現，才能發揮作用。而家庭提昇因 子即是扮演中介角色的主要提昇因子。研究中發現，具有復原力學童的家人，常能夠 善用社會外界的力量，協助其子女及家庭。以政府及民間許多協助貧窮家庭的福利措 施來說，若沒有學童家人的積極主動求助，有時是很難發揮作用的。尤其是學童還年 幼時，家庭是否能夠善用社區資源，向外找尋協助，確切地影響到學童是否能發展正 向的調適。因此，在實際應用上，家庭的相關提昇因子是必需特別加強的部份，它們 扮演著協助學童發展復原力的重要橋樑。 最後，提昇因子之間亦存在著一些替代的關係。亦即，若一種提昇因子沒有出現， 則另一具相同功能的提昇因子，可以替代欠缺的提昇因子，發揮同樣的功能。本研究 發現：若家庭親友無法提供社會支援，則可透過社區中其他的團體（如：鄰居、宗教 團體）發揮相同作用；在缺乏家庭父母關愛的情況下，學童可以透過社區中其他關愛 的成人（如：老師、親友、同學），獲得關愛。亦即，提昇因子之間的替代性主要是這 些替代的因子能發揮相同的保護功能，使不利因子不致於破壞個體正常發長所需的條 件及資源。但是，有些提昇因子是無可取代的，因為某一特定壓力，可能會引發某一 特定保護因子的需要。因此，以貧窮家庭來說，經濟匱乏的強大壓力，雖然可以透過 社會情緒上的支持而減緩，但減低經濟壓力的相關福利措施，仍是貧窮不利因子下最 主要的提昇因子，這些相關的提昇因子是無可取代的。本研究中的學童，目前都接受 了至少一個社會福利單位的協助。經濟的協助是主要項目，學童籍由政府及民間社福 單位的津貼、獎助學金、醫療健保給付等，使其基本的需求得到滿足，也才有額外的 心力放在照顧家庭及課業上。因此，在所有提昇因子中，政府及民間福利單位之福利 措施是主要的提昇因子，亦是其他提昇因子能發揮作用的關鍵因素 (Murry, Brody, Brown, Wisenbaker, Cutrona & Simons, 2002)。
四、復原力的發展
間的關係為何？提昇因子是如何協助復原力的發展呢？ Walsh (1998) 所提提昇因子 作用的三種模式：(1) 免疫模式，(2) 補償模式，(3) 挑戰模式，非常符合此研究的發 現。在 Walsh (1998)所提的三種模式中，提昇因子在復原力發展過程中，主要發揮了 三個作用。第一、提昇因子被視為一種類似預防注射的功能，因為疫苗接種而產生免 疫抗體。也就是說，這些提昇因子可以用來保護個體，協助其成功對抗貧窮不利因子， 不會受不利因子的侵害，此即是在免疫模式 (immunity model)。第二、提昇因子的作 用主要是協助個體發展對抗負向壓力的反動力量。亦即，提昇因子可以協助個體發展 出與不利因子相反的正向力量，用以平衡不利因子所造成的不良影響，發揮補償功能 (Pollard, Hawkins & Arthur, 1999; Werner, 2000)，此即是補償模式 (compensatory model)。第三、提昇因子主要是提供機會讓個體能夠從壓力事件中激發個人或家庭的 潛能，提高個體各方面的能力，引發挑戰個人潛能的機會，培養了學童各方面的能力， 此即是挑戰模式 (challenge model) (Haggerty, Sherrod, Garmezy & Rutter, 1996)。
素實質的減少或消失，（二）學童心境的轉換--切斷負向的連結（三）學童保護力的增 強--保護及提昇因子的支持。因此，介入計劃若能達成以上三個目的，即可有效地幫 助學童發展出對抗貧窮的復原力量。以下段落即針對此研究的結果提出一些建議以供 參考。 首先，本研究發現：貧窮不是單一造成學童負向調適的主要因素，而是伴隨貧窮 的多重不利因子累積而成，貧窮家庭伴隨的不利因素數量要比一般家庭高許多，也因 此較易對學童產生不良影響。有了這一層了解之後，在探討貧窮如何影響學童時，就 不能將其貧窮問題簡化為單純的經濟壓力，而必需同時考慮到貧窮所引起的不利因子 及其間的交互作用。因此，在設計介入計劃時，必需去分析了解學童所面對的不利因 子為何？不利因子的力量有多強？糾結在眾多不利因素中主要造成學童不適應行為的 因子為何？若只說貧窮的學童有危機，卻對學童面對的危機細節缺少描述，則介入者 並無法針對問題的所在積極介入協助。因此，介入分析的第一個重點即是針對貧窮學 童所面對的不利因子做一詳細的評估與分析。 除了評估學童面對的不利因素外，在作早期介入的初步分析時，還要將重點放在 如何降低學童的不利因子，以便提昇學童正向的調適。要了解如何降低不利因子的威 脅，首先必需了解學童目前因應不利因子的策略為何？在因應策略中，有何改善空間? 有何需求？當了解了學童目前處理困境的方法及需求後，評估的工作即可延伸到學童 目前及潛在的可用資源－亦即提昇因子 (Werner & Smith, 1992; Gilligan, 2001)。在分 析潛在的提昇因子時，要特別注意的是提昇因子的變動性及關連性。提昇因子會隨著 學童不同的年紀及情境而有不同方式的呈現及功用。再加上，提昇因子間具有複雜的 交互影響作用，有些提昇因子必需同時出現才有效果，例如：學童有良好的才能及問 題解決能力，但若學童有心理沮喪症狀，則學童的能力可能受情緒問題的影響而無法 發揮。在介入時，某些提昇因子必需與其他提昇因子做一整合出現，才能發揮作用。 因此，審愼的評估潛在的提昇因子及其間的關聯性才能找出適合介入的策略。 當了解了學童面對的不利因子，目前及潛在的提昇因子後，即可開始介入的策略。 從 Brofenbrenner (1977) 的生態系統理論來看，學童復原力的發展取決於當時多重系統 情境力量的結合。學童的成長與個人、家庭、社區各層次系統都有著密切的關係，因 此介入策略不應只是著重改善個體的能力而沒有考量學童週遭的大情境 (Pianta & Walsh, 1998) 。整合各層次系統所包含的危機因子、及提昇因子，可避免在介入計劃 中專門針對單一個體及事件的介入。尤其在貧窮家庭中，不利因子是多重、累積、且 同時發生的，若只是針對單獨個體或單一危機因子，是很難有效果的。因此，一個針 對個體本身、家庭、及社區不利因子及保護因子的整合性評估及策略，對於發展介入 計劃是極有幫助的（Pianta & Walsh, 1998）。
參考資料
一、中文參考資料
中央研究院經濟研究所(1996)。台灣省的貧戶認定標準=The Poverty Line in Taiwan。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題報告。 行政院主計處 (民 92 年)。台灣地區家庭所得分配狀況【線上查詢】，網址： http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/dgbas03/bs4/news/t09.xls 林士翔 (2003)。國小低收入戶與非低收入戶學生成就動機與生活適應之相關研 究。屏東: 國立屏東師院碩士論文(末出版)。 徐宗國 (譯, 1997)。質性研究概論。台北：巨流。 聯合報 (2003，11 月，27 日)。每天 17 個兒童掉進貧窮線。
二、西文參考資料
Baldwin, A. L., Baldwin, C. & Cole, R. E. (1990). Stress-resistant families and stress-resistant children. In J. E. Rolf (Ed.), Risk and protective factors in the development
of psychopathology (pp. 257-280). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bolger, K. E. (1995). Psychosocial Adjustment among Children Experiencing Persistent and Intermittent Family Economic Hardship. Child Development, 66(4), 1107-1129.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward and experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward and experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531.
Brooks, R. (1992). Self-Esteem During the School Years. Pediatric Clinics of North American, 39 (3).
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., & Aber, J. L. (1997). Neighborhood poverty: Context
and consequences for children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Huston, A. C. (1991) Children in poverty: Developmental and policy issues. In A. C. Huston (Ed.),
Children in poverty: Child development and public policy (pp. 1-22). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Chess, S. (1989). Defying the voice of doom. In T. F. Dugan & R. Coles (eds.). The
child in our times: Studies in the development of resiliency (Chapter 9). New York:
Chess, S., Thomas, A. & Birch, H. (1981). Characteristics of the child’s behavioral responses to the envrironment. In L. D. Steinberg (ed.). The life cycle: Readings in human
development. New York: Columbia University Press.
Coie, J. d. , Watt, N. F., West, S. G., Hawkins, D., Asarnow, J. R., Markman, H. J., Ramey, S. L., Shure, M. B., & Long, B. (1993). The science of prevention. American
Psychologist, 48, 1013-1022.
Dubow, E. F., Edwards, S., & Ippolito, M. F. (1997). Life stressors, neighborhood disadvantage, and resources：A focus on inner-city children’s adjustment. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 26, 130-144.
Duncan, G. D., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as process. Development
and psychopathology, 5(4), 517-528.
Egeland, B., Weinfield, N. S., Bosquet, M. & Cheng, V. K. (2000). Remembering, repeating, and working through: Lessons from attachment-based interventions. In J. D. Osofsky & H. E. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Infant mental health in groups at high risk. WAIMH handbook of infant mental health (Vol.4, pp. 35-89). New York: Wiley.
Eleen, I. G. (2000). Sharing America’s neighborhoods: The prospects for stable racial integration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Epps, S., & Jackson, B. (2000). Empowered families, successful children.
Washington, DC: APA.
Farmer, E., Burns, B., Angold, A. & Costello, E. J.(1997). Impact of Children's Mental Health Problems on Families: Relationships with Service Use. Impact of Children's Mental Health Problems on Families: Relationships with Service Use. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 5 (4), 230-238.
Fraser, M., Richman, J., & Galinsky, M. (1999). Risk, protection, and resilience: Toward a conceptual framework of social work practice. Social Work Research, 23, 131-143.
Furstenberg, F. F. Jr., Cook, T., Eccles, J. Elder, G. H., & Samroff, A. J. (1999).
Managing to make it: Urban families and adolescent success. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Gall, M. D. , Borg, W. R., Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational Research: An introduction,
sixth edition. New York: Longman.
Garmezy, N. (1970). Process and reactive schizophrenia: Some conceptions and issues. Schizophreniz Bulletin, 2, 30-74.
Garmezy, N. , Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence in children: A building block of developmental psychopathology. Child
of schizophrenia: Conceptual models and research methods. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 8, 14-90.
Gilligan, R. (2001). Promoting positive outcomes for children in need: the assessment of protective factors. In the Child’s World: Assessing children in need. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Gordman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., Henry, D. B. (2000). A developmental-ecological model of the relation of family functioning to patterns of delinquency. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 16, 169-198.
Gordman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., Henry, D. B. (2000). A developmental-ecological model of the relation of family functioning to patterns of delinquency. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 16, 169-198.
Haggerty, R. J., Sherrod, L. R. , Garmezy, N. & Rutter, M (1996). Stress, risk, and
resilience in children and adolescents: Process, mechanisms, and interventions. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Heinicke, C. M., Fineman, N. R., Ruth, G., Recchia, S. L., Guthrie, D., & Rodning, C (1999). Relationship-based intervention with at-risk mothers: Outcome in the risk year of life. Infant Mental Health Journal, 20(4), 349-374.
Jessor, R., Turbin, M. S., & Costa, F. M. (1998). Protective factors in adolescent health behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 788-800.
Kalil, A., & Kuntz, J. (1999). First births among unmarried adolescent girls: Risk and protective factors. Social Work Research, 23, 197-208.
Kaufman, J., Cook, A., Arny, L., Jones B., & Pittinsky, T., (1994). Problems defining resilience: Illustrations from the study of maltreated children. Development and
Psychopathology, 6, 115 - 147.
Kaufman, P., Kwon, J. Y.., Klein, S., & Chapman, C. D. (2000). Dropout rates in the United States: 1999 (NCES Document No. 2001-002) [online]. Available:
www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001002.pdf.
Knitzer, J., Yoshikawa, H., Gauthen, N. K., & Abert, J. L. (2000). Welfare reform, family support, and child development: Perspectives from policy analysis and
developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 12(4), 619-632. Levanthal, T. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin,
126(2), 309-337.
Cassidy & P. R., Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical
applications (pp. 555-574). New York: Guilford Press.
Lieberman, A. F., & Zeanah, C. H. (1999). Contributions of attachment theory to infant-parent psychotherapy and other interventions with infants and young children. In J. Cassidy & P. R., Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical
applications (pp. 555-574). New York: Guilford Press.
Little, M. & Mount, K. (1999). Prevention and early intervention with children in need. Ashgate, Aldershot.
Luthar, S. S. & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857-885.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D. & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543-562.
Masten, A. S. (1999a). The promise and perils of resilience research as a guide to preventive interventions：Comments on Rolf and Johnson. In M. D. Glantz, J. Johnson, & L. Huffman (Eds.), Resilience and development：Positive life adaptations (pp.251-257). New
York：Plenum.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development.
American Psychologist, 56, 227-238.
Masten, A. s., & Coastworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children.
American Psychologist, 53, 205-220.
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425-444.
Masten, A. S., Hubbard, J. J., Gest, S. D., Tellegen, A., Garmezy, N., & Ramirez, M. (1999). Adaptation in the context of adversity: Pathways to resilience and maladaptation from childhood to late adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 143-169.
Masten, A., & Coatworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American
Psychologist, 53, 205-220.
Masten, A., & Garmezy, N. (1985). Risk, vulnerability, and protective factors in developmental psychopathology. In B. Lahey & A. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical
child psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 1-52). New York: Plenum Press.
McFarlane, A. H., Bellissimo, A., & Norman, G. R. (1995). The role of family and peers in social self-efficacy : Links to depression in adolescence. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 65, 402-410.
McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development.
conceptual exploration. Child Abuse and Neglect 11: 357-366.
Murry, V. M., Brody, G. H., Brown, A., Wisenbaker, J., Cutrona, C. E., & Simons, R. L. (2002). Linking employment status, maternal psychological well-being, parenting, and children’s attributions about poverty in families receiving government assistance. Family
Relations, 51, 112-120.
Olds, D. L., Henderson, C., Kitzman, H., Eckenrode, J., Cole, R., & Tatelbaum, R. (1998). The promise of home visitation: Results of tow randomized trials. Journal of
Community Psychology, 26, 5-21.
Osborn, A.F., (1990) Resilient children: A longitudinal study of high achieving socially disadvantaged children. Early Childhood Development and Care. 62, 23-47.
Owens, E. B. & Shaw, D. S. (2003). Poverty and early childhood adjustment. In Suniya, S. Luthar (2003). Resilience and vulnerability (pp. 267-292). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pianta, R. C. & Walsh, D. J. (1998). High-risk children in schools: Constructing
sustaining relationships. N. Y.: Routledge.
Pollard, J., Hawkins, D. & Arthur, M. (1999). Risk and protection: Are both
necessary to understand diverse behavioral outcomes in adolescence? Social Work Research,
23, 145-158.
Renick, M. , Bearman, P., Blum, R., Bauman, K., Harris, K., Jones, J., Tabor, J., Beuhring, T., Sieving, R., Shew, M., Ireland, M. , Bearinger, L., & Udry, R. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the longitudinal study on adolescent health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(10), 823-832.
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331.
Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanism. In J. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective
factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 181-214). New York: Cambridge.
Ruyan, D. K., Hunter, W. M., Scoloar, R. R., Amaya-Jackson, L., English, D., Landsverk, j., Dubowitz, H., Browne, D., Bangdiwala, S. I., & Mathew, R. W. (1998). Children who prosper in unfavorable environments: The relationship to social capital.
Pediatrics, 101(1), 12-19.
Sameroff, A. J. (1986). Environmental context of child development. Journal of
Pediatrics, 109, 192-200.
Sameroff, A. J., & Seifer, R. (1990). Early contribution to developmental risk. In J. Rolf, A. S., Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H., Nuechteriein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and
protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 52-66). New York:
Sampson, R J. (2001). How do communities undergird or undermine human development? Relevant contexts and social mechanisms. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Does it take a village? Community effects on children, adolescents, and families (pp. 3-30). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Seccombe, K. (2000). Families in poverty in the 1990’s: Trends, causes,
consequences, and lessons learned. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1094-1113. Segal, J., & Yahraes, H., (1988). A Child's Journey. New York: McGraw Hill.
Sherman, A. (1994). Wasting America’s future: The Children’s defense fund report on
the costs of poverty. Boston: Beacon Press.
Smilth, J. R., Brooks-Gunn, J. & Klebanov, P. K. (1997). Consequences of living in poverty for young children’s cognitive and verbal ability and early school achievement. In G. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor (pp. 132-189). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Taylor, R. J., Ellison, C. G., Chatters, L. M., & Lincoln, K. D. (2000). Mental health services in faith communities: The role of clergy in black churches. Social Work, 45, 73-87.
Utting, D. (1999). Communities that care: A guide to promising approaches. London: Communities that Care.
Walsh, F. (1998). Strengthening family resilience. CA: Sage.
Werner, E. & Smith, R. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of
resilient children and youth. New York: McGraw Hill.
Werner, E. & Smith, R. (1992). Overcoming the odds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Werner, E. (2000). Protective factors and individual resilience. In J. Shonoff & S. Meisels (Eds.). Handbook of early childhood intervention (2nd ed.) (pp. 115-133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Werner, E. E. & Johnson, J. L. (2004). The role of caring adults in the lives of children of alcoholics. Substance use & Misuse, 39(5), 699-720.
Wyman, P. A., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., Hoyt-Meyers, L., Magnus, K. B., &Fagen, D. B. (1999). Caregiving and developmental factors differentiating young at-risk urban children showing resilient versus stress-affected outcomes：A replication and extension.
Child Development, 70, 645-659.
Wyman, P. A., Sandler, I., Wolchik, S., & Nelson, K. (2000). Resilience as
cumulative competence promotion and stress protection：Theory and intervention. In D. Cicchetti, J., Rappaport, I. Sandler, & R. P. Weissberg (Eds.), The promotion of wellness in
children and adolescents (pp. 133-184). Washington, DC：Child Welfare League of
America Press.
Cicchetti, J., Rappaport, I. Sandler, & R. P. Weissberg (Eds.), The promotion of wellness in
children and adolescents (pp. 133-184). Washington, DC：Child Welfare League of
America Press.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (Rev.ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
