(PDF) Developing Resilience to Routine S

S E R V I C E S T O F A M I L I E S AT R I S K Developing Resilience to Routine Separations: An Occupational Social Work Intervention by Adrian D. Van Breda Abstract Many families are subjected to the routine separation and politicians are just a few examples of professions paper describes a new occupational social work intervention creases their “separation resilience.” The paper a one-day, multiple-couple, psychoeducational program Seminar (SRS) is evaluated with regard to client and social work practice guidelines are proposed. ROUTINE SEPARATIONS OF EMPLOYEES FROM their family systems are common for many professionals including business executives, sales representatives, politi- cians, and military employees. These separations often place tremendous strain on the family system, sometimes resulting in family breakdown. When the family is unable to adjust adequately to these separations, the ability of the employee to function optimally in the workplace is also undermined. It is thus in the interests of both family and employer to ensure that families are able to withstand the stress of routine separations. Despite a great deal of re- search over several decades into the effects of separations on families, particularly military families, few articles have been published that describe interventions to develop a family’s ability to withstand this stress. In response to a need expressed by families in the South African (SA) Navy for assistance in coping with the routine separation of sailor-husbands, the social work de- partment initiated a research process that resulted in the evolvement of a one-day psychoeducational seminar for naval couples. Thomas’ Development Research model (1984) was followed for this process (Van Breda, 1997b). This research was located within two broad theoreti- cal frameworks, namely occupational social work and re- silience theory: Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Copyright 1999 Families International, Inc. FAMILIES IN SOCIETY • Volume 80, Number 6 which itself can be viewed as part of the salutogenic paradigm (McCubbin, Thompson, Thompson & Fromer, 1998). Within this framework, emphasis is placed on pro- moting the strengths of families. Resilience can be defined as the “characteristics, dimensions, and properties ilies which help families to be resistant to disruption in the Social workers should educate management regarding the impact of separations on families and the contribution that family resilience can make to job performance. face of change and adaptive in the face of crisis situations” (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1988, p. 247). Resilience theo- ry is consonant with the strengths perspective of social work (Saleebey, 1997). Experience in the SA Navy suggests that while many families suffer from separation stress, others cope well with the separations. The salutogenic question asks what it is about the latter families that enables them to cope (McCubbin et al., 1998). The current study adopts this stance, thereby facilitating the evolvement of an interven- tion to assist in the development of separation resilience. This paper aims to introduce a new occupational so- cial work intervention, developed in the SA Navy, to pro- mote the separation resilience of naval families. Following a review of international and South African research into separation resilience, which will highlight eight dimensions of separation resilience, the Separation Resilience Seminar (SRS) will briefly be described. The method of evaluating the initial trial implementation of the seminar will be out- lined, and the results presented. To conclude, recommen- dations for further research and development and practice guidelines for occupational social workers will Research and Literature Review Extensive reading of the literature, clinical experience of working with naval families in the SA Navy and the au- thor’s own research in the SA Navy suggest that separation resilience comprises eight principle dimensions. These di- mensions represent areas of psychosocial functioning that impact the family’s experience of separations. Seven of the eral well-being (Rosen & Moghadam, 1988), report less sadness during separations (Van Breda, 1995), have better overall social functioning, are more satisfied with their work, family, friendships and relationships, and experience better health, less depression, and higher levels of energy (Van Breda, 1996). The third dimension is defined as the presence of sup- port systems (via family, naval, community and religious) for the family and employee. Dimension 4: Financial Preparation Three-quarters of South African sea-going families are significantly concerned about their finances (Van Breda, 1995, p. 74). Furthermore, financial concern is highest among those who experience the most separation stress (Van Breda, 1995). Financial concern is associated with higher levels of anxiety and loneliness during separations and is considered by sailors to be a significant factor in the stress wives experience due to separations (Van Breda, 1995). Financial management has been associated with “balance” in families with children at home (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1992). Similarly, financial security correlates with general well being and global life satisfaction (Rosen, Moghadam, & Carpenter, 1989). Other studies show that financial preparation decreases worry during military sep- arations (Segal & Harris, 1993). The fourth separation resilience dimension is defined as the family having adequate financial resources during separations. Dimension 5: “Partner-Aware“ Family Structure Many families develop dysfunctional family as a result of the repeated separation of a member from the family unit. In some families, the member who separates is pushed out of the family in order for the family to cope without him/her during separations. This family pattern, termed “closed ranks” in military literature (Amen, Merves, Jellen, & Lee, 1988), results in substantial post- separation difficulties (Lagrone, 1978). In other families, the “ranks are kept open,” resulting in the family member being welcomed back in on his/her return, but the family disintegrates during his/her absence (Jensen, Lewis & Xe- nakis, 1986). “The extent to which this adjustment to sep- aration is successful, however, is inversely related to the ease with which the family can accommodate his return” (Boynton & Pearce, 1978, p. 130). Some writers suggest that maintaining a symbolic presence of the family helps soldiers cope better with sep- arations (Kirkland & Katz, 1989). This idea, using family rituals (Imber-black, Roberts, & Whiting, 1986) has met FAMILIES IN SOCIETY • Volume 80, Number 6 Dimension 8: Family-oriented Management South African research highlights a number of factors external to the family that influence the family’s ability to resist separation stress (Mathee, 1997; Van Breda, 1995). The experience of separation was found to vary between different groups of ships. In exploring the reasons for this, two main factors emerge (Van Breda, 1997a). Firstly, those with the highest separation stress work on ships that have erratic, unpredictable separations and that have no support groups for families during separations. Secondly, it appears that the duration of separations is a cant factor in predicting separation stress than is the fre- quency of separations (Van Breda, 1997a). When separa- tions are longer and less frequent, families have time to adjust to the phases of togetherness and separation. but frequent separations require the family to continually adjust to the coming or going of the worker, which effec- tively prevents the family from ever achieving a period of stable functioning. This last separation resilience factor is defined as the family-oriented management of the workforce and of sep- arations. Design of the Separation Resilience Seminar Based on the review of research and a number ies conducted with the SA Navy, a one-day psychoeduca- tional seminar for naval couples was designed. Multiple family psychoeducation was first developed to assist fami- lies that had a schizophrenic member (McFarlane, 1991). Psychoeducation, which has several phases, begins with a “survival workshop,” during which information schizophrenia and guidelines for more effective presented. Psychoeducation is based on a number of prin- ciples, including the beliefs that (1) the family is funda- mentally healthy and that problems develop in a misguid- ed attempt to deal with schizophrenia; (2) making specific adjustments to certain aspects of the family functioning will enhance overall family well-being and functioning; and (3) information has therapeutic properties (Nichols & Schwartz, 1991). These principles, in addition to the methodology of the survival workshop, were considered to be applicable to families who are subjected to routine separations. Psy- choeducation with multiple couples promised to offer a relatively simple and inexpensive way of strengthening family coping mechanisms and addressing counterproduc- tive coping responses. This would enable families to deal Family Assessment Device (FAD) (Epstein, Baldwin, & Bishop, 1983), which is based on the McMaster Model of Family Functioning (Epstein & Bishop, 1981), measures seven areas of family life, viz Communication, Problem Solving, Affective Involvement, Affective Responsiveness, Roles, Behaviour Control, and General Family Function- ing. This scale has been widely tested and demonstrates good psychometric properties. Secondly, the Heimler Scale of Social Functioning (HSSF) (Heimler, 1990) assesses participants’ subjective satisfaction with five areas of their social functioning (Work, Finance, Friendships, Family Relationships, and Personal Life). This axis is juxtaposed with an assessment of the degree of frustration in the participants’ social func- tioning (Energy, Health, Personal Influence, Moods, and use of Escapes such as alcohol). All items in the scale can be combined to form one index called Level of Social Functioning. In a South African study, this scale was shown to have acceptable psychometric properties (Van Zyl, 1986). Thirdly, the Deployment Resilience Scale (DRScale), which is currently being developed by the author, is a 130- item scale measuring the eight areas of separation re- Table 1. Comparison of pre-test and post-test scores. Factor **General Family Functioning (FAD) **Behaviour Control (FAD) **Finance (HSSF) *Friendships (HSSF) *Health (HSSF) **Personal Influence (HSSF) *Escapes (HSSF) **Satisfaction with Life (HSSF) *Frustration with Life (HSSF) **Level of Social Functioning (HSSF) **Emotional Continuity (DRScale) ^Family Support (DRScale) **Religious Support (DRScale) *Perspectives on Separations (DRScale) **Family-oriented Management (DRScale) n = 24 Improvements: *p< .10 **p < .05 FAMILIES IN SOCIETY • Volume 80, Number 6 Results of Evaluation Overall ratings of the seminar on the first client satis- faction form were positive, with scores ranging from 3.9 (on a five point scale) for the module on Financial ration to 4.7 for the module on Flexible Marriage. The global rating of the SRS was 4.8. At follow-up, twelve participants indicated had valued feeling less alone and that their experience of separations had been normalized, four indicated that they had realized the importance of communication in the mar- riage, and seven indicated that they had learned cope better with separation stress. Asked whether the SRS had helped during the following deployment, five partici- pants indicated that it had helped “a lot,” ticipants said that it had helped “quite a lot.” Participants were asked whether they had implemented the changes that they had planned to make during the SRS. Twelve participants indicated that they had made most or all of the intended changes; eleven that they had made a few, one, or none of the changes. A positive correlation was found between the reported helpfulness of the SRS and the number of changes made based on the SRS (r = .81, p = .001). (One of the twenty-four participants did not com- plete this form, yielding n = 23.) The three assessment scales used in the pre- and post- testing yielded a total of thirty-five variables. Fourteen of these demonstrated statistical improvements in the follow up, one demonstrated a significant deterioration, and the remaining twenty showed no significant change. Factors demonstrating significant changes are presented in Table 1. These improvements suggest relative growth in sever- al areas of personal and family functioning. Several areas of anticipated improvement are, however, missing. Factors associated with the marriage, for example, showed no sig- nificant change, despite several participants commenting in the client satisfaction forms that their marriage had im- proved. More in-depth attention may be required to sig- nificantly enhance the marital relationship itself. Factors associated with children also showed no significant change, possibly indicating that a separate workshop ad- dressing parent-child issues is required. The deterioration in family support is of concern. Clinical experience indicates that the relationship with the extended family is a frequent source of conflict and tension during and after separations. It is possible that the SRS conscientizes participants to this conflict without provid- ing adequate tools for managing it. The sample was divided into two groups (post hoc): modification be used fruitfully as the foundation for inter- vention programmes dealing with family separation in any context.” Recommendations Two sets of recommendations will be made: firstly recommendations regarding further research and develop- ment in this field, and secondly practice recommendations to occupational social workers. Further Research and Development The SRS appears, on initial evaluation, to have the po- tential to significantly enhance the well being of naval fam- ilies. It is clear, however, from the marked disparity of im- proved psychosocial functioning between those who A central set of occupational social work interventions should ensure that families are able to resist the stress of organizational demands. implemented change and those who didn’t, that mecha- nisms need to be introduced to promote change mainte- nance. Psychoeducation originally called for the initial sur- vival workshop, followed by a few years of fortnightly multiple-family group sessions, focused on problem solv- ing. Such sessions were not incorporated into the SRS for financial and practical reasons. Some form of “booster” interventions are, however, required. Such interventions could include one or more follow- up sessions, during which couples are invited to discuss on-going difficulties with developing resilience to separa- tions, followed by group problem-solving of these difficul- ties, in line with psychoeducation guidelines (McFarlane, 1991). Booster interventions could also take the form of follow-up phone calls, letters, readings, use of family sup- port groups, etc. The cross-cultural applicability of the SRS is a second major area for further development. The trial implementa- tion of the SRS, and most of the research locally and in- ternationally, has been with white and other westernized cultural groups. No black African people have been in- volved to date in this process. Current research activities FAMILIES IN SOCIETY • Volume 80, Number 6 porate the principles and guidelines included in the SRS into their practice with people who experience routine sep- arations. These guidelines can be of value not only in a for- mal separation resilience program, but also in routine case- work and group work. Many families appear to benefit from specific inputs regarding ways of managing or re- sponding to the stress of routine separations. Social workers should adopt the role of advocate when working in a setting that requires routine separa- tions. Employees, and especially families, are often not in a position to lobby management to be sensitive to the needs of workers regarding separations. Social workers should educate management regarding the impact of sepa- rations on families and the contribution that family re- silience can make to job performance. Specifically, social workers should advocate that: • management give fair warning of pending separations so that families have time to prepare • employees and families be given detailed information about a separation prior to departure • management ensures opportunities for employees and families to stay in contact during separations • support groups or systems for families are established during separations, in partnership between social work- ers and family representatives • management assumes responsibility to convene work- shops during which the SRS can be presented, rather than delegating this responsibility entirely to the social worker. Conclusion Occupational social workers endeavor to promote the goodness-of-fit between employees/families and the orga- nizations in which they work. A central set of occupation- al social work interventions should ensure that families are able to resist the stress of organizational demands. This both protects the family system and facilitates the employ- ee’s productivity and efficiency. When a key organization- al stressor is the routine separation of the employee from his/her family system, social workers should develop inter- ventions that promote the separation resilience of families. The Separation Resilience Seminar is one such example. References Akabas, S. H. (1990). Reconciling the demands of of families. Families in Society, 71(6), 366-371. Amen, D. G., Merves, E., Jellen, L., & Lee, published social work master’s degree thesis, bosch University. Kurzman, P. A., & Akabas, S. H. (1981). Industrial arena for practice. Social Work, 26(1), 52-60. Lagrone, D. M. (1978). The military family syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 135(9), 1040-1043. Levai, M., Ackermann, R., Kaplan, S., & Hammock, fect of father absence on the psychiatric dren. Military Medicine, 160(3), 104-106. Logan, K. V. (1987). The emotional cycle of deployment. Proceedings, 113(2), 43-47. Mathee, A. (1997). Die effek van militêre ontplooing Kwazulu-Natal met spesifieke verwysing na military deployment on the soldier in Kwazulu-Natal reference to the family). Unpublished social Pretoria, University of South Africa. McCubbin, H. I., & Dahl, B. B. (1976). Prolonged the military: A longitudinal study. In H. & E. J. Hunter, (Eds.), Families in the 144). London: Sage Publishers. McCubbin, H. I., & McCubbin, M. A. (1988). Typologies families: Emerging roles of social class and tions, 37(July), 247-254. McCubbin, H. I., & McCubbin, M. A. (1992). Research cial work practice of family treatment. In (Eds.), Research utilization in the social practice and administration (pp. 149-192). New York: Haworth Press. McCubbin, H. I., Thompson, E. A., Thompson, A. I., of a family member. Business executives, sales representatives, military employees, that require the regular separation of an individual from his/her family system. This that assists families in resisting the stress of separations, that is, which in- describes eight dimensions that are associated with separation resilience and introduces that fosters these factors. A trial implementation of this Separation Resilience satisfaction and effectiveness. Recommendations for ongoing research and development Kurzman and Akabas (1981, p. 52) state that “The myth that work and the rest of life exist in two separate worlds has been exposed for the denial of reality it repre- sents.” Effective occupational social work demands that social workers endeavour to reconcile the needs of families and the demands of work (Akabas, 1990). Occupational social work defines the problems and needs of individuals in terms of business issues, so as to highlight the reciprocal interdependency of organization and employee (Googins & Davidson, 1993). Occupational social work literature distinguishes be- tween the “employee-as-person” and the “person-as-em- ployee” (Spiegel, 1974 in Du Plessis, 1990). The former fo- cuses on the individual in his/her personal/family roles, while the latter addresses the individual as a worker in an organization. Comprehensive occupational social work in- terventions attempt to facilitate the interface between these two roles. The routine separation of employees from their families is an instance where these roles coincide and often clash. It is the responsibility of the organization, through the occupational social worker, to ensure goodness-of-fit between the family and work environments. I have termed the capacity to resist the stress of rou- tine separations “separation resilience,” thereby locating the construct in the broader field of resilience theory, Human Services 597 dimensions relate to processes within the family system, while the eighth addresses factors in the work environ- ment. It is assumed that the presence of these eight dimen- sions is equivalent to separation resilience. of fam- Dimension 1: Emotional Continuity People experience a predictable and typical set of emotions at different stages of a separation, beginning some weeks prior to the separation and ending some weeks afterwards (Logan, 1987; Van Breda 1997a). Many couples experience great distress during separations, in- cluding depression (Beckman, Marsella, & Finney, 1979), loneliness (Farish, Baker, & Robertson, 1976), deteriora- tion of self-esteem (Rozenzweig, Gampel, & Dasberg, 1981), decreased global satisfaction with life (Van Breda, 1997a) and increased physical illness (Snyder, 1978). While some affective and relational fluctuations over the separation cycle are normative, some couples experience marked emotional turbulence. This first dimension, emotional continuity, is defined as families having a reasonably stable emotional life over the cycle of a separation. Dimension 2: Positive Perspectives on Separations The literature indicates, in accordance with cognitive theory, that one’s perception of or attitude toward the or- ganization and separations has a significant impact on one’s coping with separations (Milgram & Bar, 1993). Knapp and Newman (1993) found that wives who per- ceive military life as less stressful experience significantly more psychological well-being than those who perceive military life as more stressful. Another study found that a wife’s attitude toward her husband’s military unit affects his morale, which in turn influences his perceptions of the army-family interface (Rosen, Moghadam, & Vaitkus, 1989). The second resilience dimension is defined as the fam- ily’s positive attitude towards separations and the employ- ing organization. be outlined. Dimension 3: Support Systems There is strong indication that social support buffers the family and employee from separation stress (Amen, Merves, Jellen, & Lee, 1988). The children of mothers who feel supported show better adjustment at home and school during separations (Hiew, 1992). Religious support is found to correlate with family resilience (McCubbin and McCubbin, 1992). Sailors and wives who feel they can rely on other sailors or naval wives for help with a personal or family problem tend to experience a greater sense of gen- 598 Van Breda • Developing Resilience to Routine Separations with some success in our clinical work with naval couples. It is hypothesised that such a practice helps the family find a balance between open and closed ranks, and has been termed “maintaining a partner-aware family” by the au- thor. This fifth dimension of separation resilience is defined as the family having a “partner-aware” family structure. Dimension 6: Resilient Children SA Navy studies show that sailors perceive the needs of their children to be the greatest factor making separa- tions difficult for their wives (Van Breda, 1995). Children experience an emotional cycle similar to their parents (Kelly, 1994b). Father absences have been shown to have a detrimental effect on many children (Herbst, 1995; Kruger, 1997), particularly on boys (McCubbin & Dahl, 1976) and younger children (Kelly, 1994a). Children, par- ticularly the oldest son, are often parentalized during sep- arations (Riggs, 1990), which can precipitate enmeshment with the mother (Wertsch, 1991) and conflict with the fa- ther (Levai, Ackermann, Kaplan, & Hammock, 1995). Maternal coping and well being, social support, and fami- ly functioning prior to separation have repeatedly been shown to have a buffering effect on children (Black, 1993; Segal & Harris, 1993; Hiew, 1992). More recent papers address the differences, or rather, the absence of differ- ences between maternally and paternally separated chil- dren in military families (Applewhite & Mays, 1996; Kelly, Herzog-Simmer, & Harris, 1994). The sixth dimension is defined as the family actively developing the separation resilience of their children. structures Dimension 7: Flexible Marriage SA Navy research shows that, for both men and women, having a stable, secure and happy marital rela- tionship is, by far, the most important factor in helping families cope more effectively with separations (Van Breda, 1995). Of course, even couples with healthy, well-func- tioning marriages find separations stressful (Segal, 1986). A key dynamic in the marital relationship is that of role changes and authority. Riggs (1990, p. 152) notes, for ex- ample, that wives who establish “independence and self- sufficiency” enhance their coping with separations and ad- vocates women adopting an androgynous gender role. Other authors also suggest, however, that husbands need to be able to cope with an independent wife (Lagrone, 1978). This sixth dimension, flexible marriage, is defined as a secure marriage in which partners are flexible in the al- location of gender roles and responsibilities. 599 more effectively with separation-related stress, thereby in- creasing the general well being of the family and the em- ployee’s ability to be mobile. The seminar involves the presentation of specific in- formation and practical guidelines, facilitation of group discussions, dialogue between partners, use of gender based subgroups, sociodrama and action planning. Partic- ipants are given a thirty-page manual summarizing all rel- evant information and guidelines, based on the eight re- silience dimensions. less signifi- Evaluation of the Separation Resilience Seminar Short This evaluation of the SRS is based upon the initial evaluation of the trial implementation of the SRS. To date, a formal programme evaluation of the seminar is out- standing. The SRS was evaluated in two forms. Firstly, im- mediately after the seminar, couples were asked to com- plete a client satisfaction form in which they rated their satisfaction with the presentation of each resilience dimen- sion using a Likert scale ranging from 1(poor) to 5(excel- Occupational social workers of stud- are in a prime position to assist organizations and families in accommodating each other’s needs. regarding coping are lent). After two months, couples were asked to complete a follow-up client satisfaction form in which they were asked what they remembered as most helpful, how helpful the SRS had been during the following separation, and how many of the changes that they had planned to make during the SRS had they in fact made. These evaluations provided a subjective evaluation of the SRS. Secondly, the effectiveness of the SRS was evaluated using a single-system design. All participants completed a battery of scales two weeks prior to the SRS. Two months after the SRS, the same battery was completed. In the meantime, the ship had deployed away from home for one month. T-tests, with a significance level of p < .10, were used to detect meaningful changes. Three scales were used in this evaluation. Firstly, the 600 Van Breda • Developing Resilience to Routine Separations silience as outlined previously in this paper. A four-point scale (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree) is used. As the DRScale is still under development, these re- sults are interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, the sub- scales demonstrated good internal reliability (Cronbach Alpha’s greater than .80) (Van Breda, 1997b). The pilot group comprised thirty-four participants (eighteen couples) drawn voluntarily from one of the navy’s strikecraft. The Captain of the vessel was responsi- ble for marketing the SRS to his crew and for convening a suitable venue. Twenty-nine of the thirty-four participants remained in the navy at the time of the second evaluation. Twenty-four of these returned completed follow-up ques- tionnaires, giving a return rate of 82.8% of those partici- pants still available and 70.6% of the original group of participants. The mean age of the final sample (n = 24) was 30.3 years, with a range of twenty-four to thirty-seven years. Participants had been married for a mean of 5.7 years. Twenty-one participants had one or more children, with the average age of the oldest child being 5.8 years. Partic- ipants represented a broad spectrum of naval ranks. Pre-test Post-test T-test p 1.88 1.71 2.07 .025 1.96 1.77 2.48 .011 4.8 7.4 -2.15 .021 15.7 17.2 -1.65 .057 5.8 4.3 1.46 .080 10.2 6.8 2.40 .012 5.0 3.9 1.54 .068 62.8 68.2 -1.90 .035 32.0 24.3 1.62 .060 4.3 3.2 2.49 .010 2.16 1.99 2.33 .015 1.76 1.87 -1.56 .067 1.99 1.87 1.93 .033 2.15 2.02 1.66 .055 2.58 2.35 2.54 .009 Deterioration’s: ^p < .10 601 those who had made most or all of the intended changes (n = 12, Group 1) and those who made few or none (n = 11, Group 2). T-tests were conducted on the thirty-five Prepa- Social workers should adopt the that they role of advocate when working in a setting that requires to how to routine separations. and fifteen par- variables for each group. Group 1 showed significant im- provement in twenty-two of the thirty-five variables (in contrast with only one improvement in Group 2). Further- more, in six additional areas, Group 1 did not significant- ly deteriorate where Group 2 did. This suggests that those who incorporated the principles of separation resilience in their families showed relative improvements in 80% of the factors assessed. A possible explanation for the substantial difference between these two groups is that Group 2 served as a kind of control group. These were people who attended the seminar without it touching their lives in an ongoing way. They may have enjoyed the seminar itself, but it was not a significant event in their lives. It was as if they had not at- tended the seminar at all. Their deterioration may, there- fore, indicate what would have happened to all the partic- ipants had the SRS not been run. Such a deterioration may, in fact, be anticipated, as it can be linked to the stage of deployment. The seminar was run at the end of an extended period during which the ship was out of the water. The four-week deployment on which they were about to go was the first separation in over six months. It is theoretically predictable that the functioning of the crew and their families would have deteriorated as they re-entered the disruptions of deployments. It thus appears that when the recommendations are followed through, the SRS is able to significantly improve the social and family functioning of couples who experi- ence routine separations. The Separation Resilience Semi- nar summarizes the wealth of information that has been collected from the literature and studies in the SA Navy. The SRS is specifically written for a naval audience, but is based on literature which is drawn from navy, air force, army and the private sector. McKendrick (1997) suggests that the SRS could, “with relatively minor contextual 602 Van Breda • Developing Resilience to Routine Separations are exploring the applicability of the construct of “separa- tion resilience” to black African cultures and, if the con- struct is meaningful, whether the SRS is of value in these cultures. The SRS is based on the assumption that separation resilience leads to improved mobility and “coping” during separations. This assumption has not been directly tested, although informal feedback from the captain of the vessel used in the trial implementation, two years later indicates that the SRS has continued to be of value to his crew. Re- search is still needed to explore the relationship between separation resilience and job performance and family well being, in order to confirm this assumption. Evaluations of new interventions often yield results more positive than results obtained later. This may be re- lated to the novelty of the intervention and the awareness of participants that they are involved in groundbreaking research. Formal programme evaluation of the SRS, using a control group and a more stringent significance level for the comparison of means tests, is essential before the SRS can be accepted as “effective.” Practice Guidelines for Occupational Social Workers Occupational social workers are in a prime position to assist organizations and families in accommodating each other’s needs. It is the purpose of occupational social work to facilitate the interface between these two systems. Inasmuch as routine separations are common to many organizations, this is a key area for research and intervention. Social workers should be familiar with the research into separations. Although most of this literature is based on military studies, a significant portion of it has been con- ducted by social workers who share values similar to other occupational social workers. The handful of published studies on non-military separations should be augmented to determine whether military separations parallel non- military separations. Occupational social workers should be familiar with the literature on psychoeducation. This model of interven- tion, which is an integration of the resilience and strengths perspectives and group work, offers a method and set of practice principles which can be of value when dealing with organizational stressors which are intrinsic to the job (e.g. exposure to danger, routine separations, rapid changes in roles or responsibilities, etc). Psychoeducation is a cost-effective, nonthreatening intervention, which is ideally suited to certain problems in the workplace. Social workers in occupational settings should incor- 603 impact of deployment separation on military children: Stages, cur- rent preventive efforts, and system recommendations. Military Medicine, 153(9), 441-445. Applewhite, L. W., & Mays, R. A. (1996). Parent-child separation: A comparison of maternally and paternally separated children in mil- itary families. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 13(1), 23- 39. Beckman, K., Marsella, A. J., & Finney, R. (1979). Depression in the wives of nuclear submarine personnel. American Journal of Psychi- atry, 136(4), 524-526. Black, W. G. (1993). Military-induced family separation: A stress reduc- tion intervention. Social Work, 38(3), 273-280. Boynton, K. R., & Pearce, W. B. (1978). Personal transitions and inter- personal communication among submariners’ wives. In Hunter, E. J., & Nice, D. S. (Eds.), Military families: Adaptation to change (pp. 130-141). New York: Praeger Publishers. Du Plessis, A. (1990). Occupational social work practice. In B.W. McK- endrick, (Ed.), Social Work in Action (pp.199-228). Pretoria, South Africa: HAUM. Epstein, N. B., Baldwin, L. M., & Bishop, D. S. (1983). The McMaster Family Assessment Device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9(2), 171-180. Epstein, N. B., & Bishop, D. S. (1981). Problem-centered systems thera- py of the family. In A. S. Gurman, & D. P. Kniskern, (Eds.), Hand- book of family therapy (pp. 444-482), New York: Brunner/Mazel. Farish, S., Baker, F., & Robertson, M. (1976). Research on the military family: An annotated bibliography. In H. L. McCubbin, B. B. Dahl, & E. J. Hunter, (Eds.), Families in the military system (pp. 320- 367). Beverly Hills: Sage. Googins, B., & Davidson, B. N. (1993). The organization as client: Broadening the concept of Employee Assistance Programs. Social Work, 38(4), 477-484. Herbst, A. G. (1995). Militêre skeiding — Hoe raak dit ons kinders (Mil- itary separation — How does it affect our children). Milmed, 11(3), 12-16. Heimler, E. (1990). Heimler Scale of Social Functioning, Revision IV. London: Eugene Heimler Trustees. Hiew, C. C. (1992). Separated by their work: Families with fathers living apart. Environment and Behavior, 24(2), 206-225. Imber-Black, E., Roberts, J., & Whiting, R. A. (1988). Rituals in families and family therapy. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Jensen, P. S., Lewis, R. L., & Xenakis, S. N. (1986). The military family in review: Context, risk, and prevention. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 25(2), 225-234. Kelley, M. L. (1994a). The effects of military-induced separation on fam- ily factors and child behavior. American Journal of Orthopsychia- try, 64(1), 103-111. Kelley, M. L. (1994b). Military-induced separation in relation to mater- nal adjustment and children’s behaviors. Military Psychology, 6(3), 163-176. Kelley, M. L., Herzog-Simmer, P. A., & Harris, M. A. (1994). Effects of military-induced separation on the parenting stress and family func- tioning of deploying mothers. Military Psychology, 6(2), 125-138. Kirkland, F. R., & Katz, P. (1989). Combat readiness and the army fam- ily. Military Review, 69(4), 63-74. Knapp, T. S., & Newman, S. J. (1993). Variables related to the psycho- logical well being of army wives during the stress of an extended military separation. Military Medicine, 158(2), 77-80. work with the needs Kruger, A. (1997). Die oorgang van die militêre gesinsisteem na ouerskap (The transition to parenthood of the military family system). Un- R. E. (1988). Minimizing the 604 Van Breda • Developing Resilience to Routine Separations Stellenbosch, Stellen- ioral and Social Sciences. Snyder, A. I. (1978). Periodic marital separation and physical illness. social work as an American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 48(4), 637-643. Thomas, E. J. (1984). Designing interventions for the helping profes- sions. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Van Breda, A. D. (1995). The family’s experience of South African naval M. (1995). The ef- deployments. Unpublished manuscript, Institute for Maritime hospitalization of navy chil- Medicine, South Africa. Van Breda, A. D. (1996). Social survey of Simonstown naval personnel. Unpublished research, Institute for Maritime Medicine, South Africa. op die soldaat in Van Breda, A. D. (1997a). Experience of routine husband absences. So- die gesin (The effect of cial Work / Maatskaplike Werk, 33(2), 154-164. with specific Van Breda, A. D. (1997b). The development of the Deployment Re- work master’s thesis, silience Seminar. Unpublished social work master’s thesis, Cape Town, University of Cape Town. family separation in Van Zyl, M. A. (1986). Validation of the Heimler Scale of Social Func- L. McCubbin, B. B. Dahl, tioning for client groups in South Africa. Unpublished social work military system (pp. 112- doctoral thesis, University of Natal, Durban. Wertsch, M. E. (1991). Military brats: Legacies of childhood inside the of resilient fortress. New York: Harmony Books. ethnicity. Family Rela- utilization in so- A. J. Grasso, & I. Epstein, Adrian D. Van Breda trained as a clinical social worker at the University of sciences: Innovations for Cape Town. He is currently head of Social Work Research and Development, Military Psychological Institute, South African National Defence Force. Cor- respondence in regard to this article can be sent to him at: mpi. & Fromer, J. E.

[email protected]

(Eds.) (1998). Stress, coping and health in families: Sense of coher- ence and resiliency. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publ. McFarlane, W. R. (1991). Family psychoeducational treatment. In A. S. Original manuscript received: September 10, 1998 Gurman, & D. P. Kniskern, (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy Revision received: July 14, 1999 (pp. 363-395), New York: Brunner/Mazel. Manuscript accepted: August 23, 1999 McKendrick, B. (1997). Examiner’s report on dissertation by Van Breda, A. D. Unpublished. Milgram, N. A., & Bar, K. (1993). Stress on wives due to husbands’ haz- ardous duty or absence. Military Psychology, 5(1), 21-39. Nichols, M. P., & Schwartz, R. C. (1991). Family therapy: Concepts and methods (2nd ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Riggs, B. A. (1990). Routine-work-related-absence: The effects on fami- lies. Marriage and Family Review, 15, 147-160. Rosen, L. N., & Moghadam, L. Z. (1988). Social support, family sepa- ration, and well being among military wives. Behavioral Medicine, (Summer), 64-70. Rosen, L. N., Moghadam, L. Z., & Carpenter, C. J. (1989). Impact of military life stress on the quality of life of military wives. Military Medicine, 154(3), 116-120. Rosen, L. N., Moghadam, L. Z., & Vaitkus, M. A. (1989). The military family’s influence on soldiers’ personal morale: A path analytic model. Military Psychology, 1(4), 201-213. Rozenzweig, M., Gampel, J., & Dasberg, H. (1981). Separation and stress in the military family in Israel. Israeli Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 18(2), 87-98. Saleebey, D. (Ed.) (1997). The strengths perspective in social work prac- tice (2nd ed). New York: Longman. Segal, M. W. (1986). The military and the family as greedy institutions. Armed Forces and Society, 13(1), 9-38. Segal, M. W., & Harris, J. J. (1993). What we know about army fami- lies. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behav- 605

(PDF) Developing Resilience to Routine Separations: An Occupational Social Work Intervention