What is Resilience
Long-term developmental studies have followed individuals raised in extremely high-risk environments that included significant levels of poverty, alcoholism, drug abuse, physical and sexual abuse, and mental illness.
Researchers found that at least 50 percent and usually closer to 70 percent of these individuals grow up to be not only successful by societal standards, but "confident, competent, and caring" persons (Werner & Smith, 1992).
The reason some individuals succeed when faced with risks and adversity is resiliency – the capability of individuals and systems (families, groups and communities) to cope with significant adversity or stress in ways that are not only effective, but tend to result in an increased ability to constructively respond to future adversity. Lifton (1994) identified resiliency as the human capacity of all individuals to transform and change, no matter what their risks; it is an innate "self-righting mechanism".
It is important to understand that resiliency is not a static state. Rather, this capacity for resiliency develops and changes over time, is enhanced by protective factors within the individual and their social environments, and contributes to the maintenance or enhancement of health.
It is helpful to understand the need for the integration of resilience-based practices into individuals and organizations by comparing it to traditional models. The following is a feature-to-benefit comparison.
| Traditional Practice | Resilience Strength-Based Practice |
Benefits |
| "At-Risk/Problem" focus | "Strengths and potential focus" | Better predictors of outcome |
| Professional as expert | Collaborative, respectful, holistic | Better engagement, outcomes |
| Limited focus on opportunities | Focus on meaningful opportunities | Opportunities realized & seized |
| Often results in resistance | Results in engagement | Better outcomes |
| Over diagnose, label, treat | Knowledge of strengths & hope | All of the above |





