Resilience amid Unit of Society on Prosperity - Research Paper Example

Heading: Resilience among families on welfare Your name: Course name: Professors’ name: Date Risk factors According to Kutcher and Chehil (2012, pp. 1-25), risk factors entail those influences that can interrupt one’s or family’s capability to cope in stressful times. Some of these factors include substance abuse, domestic violence, financial hardships, and low self-esteem. These factors adversely affect one’s way of reacting to crisis. Both welfare recipients and welfare non-recipients have experience these life stress events. Notably, as Illinois Families Study (2002) reports, parents who are recipients of welfare support tend to lack basic skills essential for employment. Studies indicate that a majority of adults that rely on welfare support have lower basic skills than the general population. According to Hamermesh (2000, pp. 1-30), these skills include arithmetic, writing, information technology, customer service, and reading skills, which are highly indispensable in their lives. As a result, such people undergo serious financial hardships because of low job opportunities available for them. Besides, it is hard to move them to work from welfare reliance due to lack of primary skills that make them employable. Further, Illinois Families Study (2002) notes that financial hardship among welfare recipients’ results from their inability to understand, or comply with workplace behaviors and norms. In fact, most of the welfare recipient parents lose jobs due to lack of punctuality; a lot of absenteeism; irresponsibility in workplace, and misunderstood or resented authority lines. As a result, they end up becoming more financially stressed than the welfare non-recipients. Employer discrimination is also another factor that aggravates their financial hardships, as the welfare recipients either cannot access jobs, or lose them. Morris (2008, pp. 579-614) says that welfare recipient parents cannot access employment because of depression. This implies that depression is one of the major obstacles to work among welfare recipients, as compared to the welfare non-recipients. Another life stressful event that affects individuals is substance abuse. Illicit substance abuse among welfare recipients is significant barrier to their social performance and well-being. According to the early study by Morgenstern (2001), a plan of targeted screening and evaluation for authorized New Jersey’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients. As per the results, 49% authorized recipients satisfied screening measures for drug use disorder. In fact, specialized screening seemed to raise considerably the figures of referrals for drug abuse evaluation. According to Snyder (2004), it is worth noting that relationship or family break-up is one of the life stressful events between both welfare dependent and working class individuals. Majority of welfare-dependent cases are single mother families. This probably results from relationship break-ups or divorce due to infidelity, promiscuity, sexual harassment, or domestic violence. These relationship break-ups cause a lot of stress on the mothers whose partners are nowhere to help in the provision of family needs. In fact, most of such families comprise of many children that make it difficult for parents to cater for sufficiently (Snyder 2004). Therefore, this situation eventually leads to poverty; hence, creating a stressful situation for the welfare recipients. Moreover, Small and Lerner (2008, pp. 150-169) say that lose of a loved one creates yet another serious life stressful event for welfare recipients as they develop major depression. For instance, if a family loses a loved one, it becomes difficult for the bereaved members to move on due to shock, anxiety, anger, and grief. This even gets worse in a situation where a family depends on welfare support. Notably, welfare recipients are more likely to undergo more stressful life events including loss of loved ones, substance abuse, financial hardships, and relationship breakdown. For non-recipients, there life stressful events are few including, main financial hardship, relationship breakdown, and drug abuse. According to Child Trends (2010), parents who receive welfare assistance are more probable to report depression symptoms. For instance, in 2008, 17% welfare recipient parents display depression symptoms, as compared to the 4% of the non-welfare symptoms. Protective factors As per Kutcher and Chehil (2012, pp. 1-25) and Jenson and Fraser (2011, pp. 244-245), protective traits refer to strengths that that individuals or families applying in order to cope with life difficulties and stress. These factors raise the probability of the rebound from hard situations. Some of these factors include independence and sense of humor, and becoming and first-borne. These factors are tools use in times of problems, they offer them edge and assist them cope with difficult situations. These factors do not bar problems, but they do aid in solving them. In this case, protective factors neighborhood connectedness, neighboring social capital; self-efficacy; and access to support services. According to Health Canada (2008), connectedness refers to the sense of association with a school, family, or community. This is vital for individuals who feel overwhelmed by life stressful events, such as, depression, domestic violence, substance abuse, and financial hardships. Community or neighborhood connectedness is essential since it allows people to enjoy a shared history, cultural traits, customs, values, and language. This also brings about a common religion, contributes to survival, and facilitates knowing and trusting each other. The neighborhood connectedness is influential in facilitating resilience among welfare recipient parents or individuals than welfare non-recipient individuals experiencing depression due to life stressful events. Consequently, this helps in reducing or buffering levels of depression among these people. Social capital is another protective factor against stressful life events like depression. Welfare recipients have a high exposure to depression due to numerous challenges that include financial hardships and substance abuse. According to Schmid (2000), presence of social capital develops a feeling of connection with the members of their community. Healthy friendships and relationships around an individual are vital in reduction of depression levels among welfare recipient individuals. This, therefore, confirms that social capital as a protective factor helps in buffering individuals from life stressful events, as compared to the welfare non-recipients. What is more, Palermo (2008, pp. 40-50) asserts that the availability of support services is beneficial to individuals suffering depression in life, especially among welfare recipients. This is because welfare recipients are mostly low-income earners, or jobless. Some of the support services available for welfare recipients include rehabilitation centers, religious centers, and schools buffers depression among welfare recipients in comparison to the non-recipients. As Meadows (2005, pp. 109-120) asserts, self-efficacy is another protective factor against life stressful situations among welfare recipients and non-recipients. Further, Malone et al (2000 pp. 1084–1088) says that among welfare recipient individuals, self-efficacy buffers them from depressive behaviors, such as, need to commit suicide. This is because self-efficacy fosters a positive attitude towards life, and enables them to participate in life activities. Without doubt, the aforementioned risk protective factors buffer welfare recipients more that the non-recipients from life stressing events; hence, reducing levels of stress. Discussion According to the current study’s findings, welfare recipient parents and the non-recipients ones display different levels of life stressful events. Some of the predominant stressful events that the study focused on include financial hardships; lose of loved ones; substance abuse; and relationship breakdowns. As per the study, these risk factors influence welfare recipient parents differently from the non-recipients. For instance, a study on the welfare recipient parents showed that they are likely to suffer higher depression levels due to the four aforementioned stressful events than the welfare non-recipients. This means that welfare recipient parents of young children are vulnerable to more depression by serious financial hardship, relationship breakdown, demise of a loved one, and substance abuse. On contrast, those parents who do not receive any welfare can only suffer from three life stressful factors that include adverse financial hardship, relationship breakdown, and substance abuse. Besides, these research results demonstrate that support services emerged as one of the protective factors to the welfare recipients who develop depression because of life stressful events. Furthermore, for the welfare recipients that face stressful life events for the past one year had support services buffer them from stressful life events. In comparison with the parents that received insufficient support services, welfare recipients benefit more from these support services. To have a clear understanding of these outcomes, it is crucial to study each section as follows: Risk factors In relation to risk factors, the study focused on four major life stressful events that affect the depression levels of welfare recipient parents and non-recipients. Among welfare recipient parents, the study shows that they are likely to suffer more depression due to risk factors including adverse financial hardships, lose of a loved one, substance abuse, and relationship breakdown, even with controlled socio-demographic differences. The study results indicate that there is a strong association between relationship breakdown and high depression levels in welfare recipients. Similarly, the same study results demonstrate that there is a close correlation between relationship breakdown and high depression levels among non-recipient parents. This means that both categories of parents develop high depression levels due to serious financial hardships. Besides, the study indicates a strong relationship between lose of a loved one and high depression levels in welfare recipients, but no relationship between lose of a loved one and high depression levels among welfare the non-recipients. This implies that lose of loved one affects welfare recipients more than the non-recipients. Additionally, the study findings show that there is a strong link between substance abuse and high depression levels in welfare recipients. Likewise the study outcomes point out that there is a positive connection between substance abuse and high depression levels among welfare non-recipient parents. This means that substance abuse equally affects both welfare recipients and non-recipients. Moreover, the research findings also point out that there is a strong correlation between relationship breakdown and high depression levels in welfare recipients and the non-recipients. These findings, therefore, justify the hypothesis that welfare recipient parents suffer more depression from life stressful events than the non-recipients do. Protective factors Some of the protective factors that the current study focus include support services, neighborhood connectedness, self-efficacy, and neighboring social capital. Research findings demonstrate a close correlation between neighborhood connectedness and reduced depression levels among welfare recipient parents. Likewise, these results show that there is a positive correlation between the variables among welfare non-recipients. This implies that both welfare recipients and non-recipients enjoy a buffering effect of neighborhood connectedness. Besides, this study’s results indicate that there is a strong relationship between the self-efficacy, as a protective factor against life stressful events, and low depression levels among welfare recipient parents. Similarly, there is strong relationship between self-efficacy and low depression levels in welfare non-recipients. This implies that self-efficacy reduce the levels of depression due stressful life events among welfare recipients equally as the welfare non-recipients. It also means that self-efficacy functions well for both groups of parents as it buffers them from life stressful events, and reduce depression symptoms. In the case of social capital protective factor, there is a strong correlation between social capital and reduced depression levels among welfare recipients. On the other hand, there is no association between the two variables among the non-recipients of welfare support. This implies that social capital protective factor provides a buffer for welfare recipients as compared to the welfare non-recipients. What is more, study results indicate that there is a positive correlation between the access to support services and low depression levels among welfare recipient parents. Notably, welfare recipient parents that access support services develop resistant to depression symptoms. By contrast, the study findings indicate that there is no clear relationship between access to support services and low depression levels among welfare non-recipients. This implies that support services only work positively for the welfare recipient parents as compared to the non-recipient ones. Interaction between risk factors and protective factors With respect to the current study results, it is explicit that welfare recipient parents are highly vulnerable to stressful life events in comparison to the welfare non-recipients. It is apparent that depression levels are lower among welfare recipient parents that experience life stressful event in the last one year because of they can access support services. On contrast, there is no relationship between reduced depression and access to support services among welfare non-recipients. This implies welfare non-recipients are likely to develop a lot of depression if they undergo stressful life event without access to support services. Therefore, protective factors are likely to protect welfare recipient parents from stressful life events as compared to the welfare non-recipients. References Child Trends (2010). Parental Depression. Retrieved on May 9, 2012 from: www.childtrendsdatabank.org/?q=node/191. Hamermesh, D.S. (2000). Reforming the Financial Incentives of the Welfare System. IZA DP No. 172. Pp. 1-30. http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/finan-incen-welfare.pdf Health Canada (2008). A Study of Resiliency in Communities. Retrieved on May 9, 2012 from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/pubs/adp-apd/resiliency-enquete/resiliency- enquete_discussion-eng.php Illinois Families Study, IFS. (2002).What facilitates employment among those with depression? Mental Health and Welfare reform, 3 (7), 1-4. http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/research/PDFs/depression.pdf Jenson, J.M. & Fraser, M.W. (2011). Social policy for children and families: a risk and resilience perspective. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE. Pp. 244-245. Kutcher, S. & Chehil, S. (2012). Suicide Risk Management: A Manual for Health Professionals. New Jersey; NY: John Wiley and Sons. Pp. 1-25. Malone, K. M., et al (2000). Protective factors against suicidal acts in major depression: Reasons for living. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157 (3), 1084–1088. Meadows, L.A. (2005). Protective Factors against Suicide Attempt Risk among African American Women Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence American. Journal of Community Psychology, 36 (1/2), 109-120. http://www.psychiatry.emory.edu/PROGRAMS/niaproject/publications/meadows.protect ive.pdf Morgenstern, J. et al (2001). Specialized screening approaches can substantially increase the identification of substance abuse problems among welfare recipients. Pp. 1-3. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/njsard00/screening-rn.htm Morris, P.A. (2008).Welfare Program Implementation and Parents’ Depression. Social Service Review, 82(4): 579–614. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3208326/ Palermo, J. A. (2008). Hope and Social Support as Protective Factors in Postpartum Psychological perspective. Proquest. Pp. 40-50. Schmid, A.A. (2000). Affinity as social capital: its role in development. Journal of Socio- Economics, 29 (3), 159-171 http://www.altruists.org/static/files/Affinity%20As%20Social%20Capital%20(A.%20All an%20Schmid).pdf Small, D.A. &Lerner, J.S. (2008). Emotional Policy: Personal Sadness and Anger Shape Judgments about a Welfare Case, Political Psychology, 29 (2), 150-169. Snyder, T. (2004). Welfare; History, Results and Reform. http://www.neoperspectives.com/welfare.htm Read More

Moreover, Small and Lerner (2008, pp. 150-169) say that lose of a loved one creates yet another serious life stressful event for welfare recipients as they develop major depression. For instance, if a family loses a loved one, it becomes difficult for the bereaved members to move on due to shock, anxiety, anger, and grief. This even gets worse in a situation where a family depends on welfare support. Notably, welfare recipients are more likely to undergo more stressful life events including loss of loved ones, substance abuse, financial hardships, and relationship breakdown.

For non-recipients, there life stressful events are few including, main financial hardship, relationship breakdown, and drug abuse. According to Child Trends (2010), parents who receive welfare assistance are more probable to report depression symptoms. For instance, in 2008, 17% welfare recipient parents display depression symptoms, as compared to the 4% of the non-welfare symptoms. Protective factors As per Kutcher and Chehil (2012, pp. 1-25) and Jenson and Fraser (2011, pp. 244-245), protective traits refer to strengths that that individuals or families applying in order to cope with life difficulties and stress.

These factors raise the probability of the rebound from hard situations. Some of these factors include independence and sense of humor, and becoming and first-borne. These factors are tools use in times of problems, they offer them edge and assist them cope with difficult situations. These factors do not bar problems, but they do aid in solving them. In this case, protective factors neighborhood connectedness, neighboring social capital; self-efficacy; and access to support services. According to Health Canada (2008), connectedness refers to the sense of association with a school, family, or community.

This is vital for individuals who feel overwhelmed by life stressful events, such as, depression, domestic violence, substance abuse, and financial hardships. Community or neighborhood connectedness is essential since it allows people to enjoy a shared history, cultural traits, customs, values, and language. This also brings about a common religion, contributes to survival, and facilitates knowing and trusting each other. The neighborhood connectedness is influential in facilitating resilience among welfare recipient parents or individuals than welfare non-recipient individuals experiencing depression due to life stressful events.

Consequently, this helps in reducing or buffering levels of depression among these people. Social capital is another protective factor against stressful life events like depression. Welfare recipients have a high exposure to depression due to numerous challenges that include financial hardships and substance abuse. According to Schmid (2000), presence of social capital develops a feeling of connection with the members of their community. Healthy friendships and relationships around an individual are vital in reduction of depression levels among welfare recipient individuals.

This, therefore, confirms that social capital as a protective factor helps in buffering individuals from life stressful events, as compared to the welfare non-recipients. What is more, Palermo (2008, pp. 40-50) asserts that the availability of support services is beneficial to individuals suffering depression in life, especially among welfare recipients. This is because welfare recipients are mostly low-income earners, or jobless. Some of the support services available for welfare recipients include rehabilitation centers, religious centers, and schools buffers depression among welfare recipients in comparison to the non-recipients.

As Meadows (2005, pp. 109-120) asserts, self-efficacy is another protective factor against life stressful situations among welfare recipients and non-recipients. Further, Malone et al (2000 pp. 1084–1088) says that among welfare recipient individuals, self-efficacy buffers them from depressive behaviors, such as, need to commit suicide.

Read More