Chapter 3. Develop approaches to promote the overall well-being of immigrants

This chapter identifies the extent to which individuals with an immigrant background compare to those without - with regards to their levels of skills, but also in terms of their overall well-being - using evidence from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the OECD Survey of Adult Skills. The chapter examines principles that can guide the design and implementation of policies and practices in education and training systems to support the overall well-being of immigrants and refugees.

    

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Supporting the academic performance of all students is often a top priority for countries and school systems to empower new generations and to promote growth. When faced with large migratory flows, research shows that education systems have a crucial role to play in ensuring immigrants integrate well in the host country, which can depend largely on their academic performance. The academic skills of students with an immigrant background tend to be much lower than that of native students. According to PISA 2015 results, on average across OECD countries, as much as 51% of first-generation immigrant students (foreign-born students of foreign-born parents) failed to reach baseline academic proficiency in reading, mathematics and science, compared to only 28% of students without an immigrant background.

The large gap in the academic performance of immigrant and native students’ can explain why countries might focus their education policies on honing immigrant students’ academic skills. Academic skills can increase the readiness of students to learn the necessary skills needed to enter the labour market and help the host country thrive.

However, major differences exist not only in the skills immigrants have, but also in the levels of social and emotional well-being they report, which are equally important for immigrants’ successful integration. In fact, there is a large degree of variation in how vulnerable different immigrant groups are in terms of experiencing low levels of social and emotional well-being. Such variation differs systematically depending on the country in which they (or their parents) had settled, the characteristics of the schools they attend (in the case of immigrant children) and the experiences they have in the labour market (in the case of immigrant adults).

This chapter shows that individuals with an immigrant background who have positive academic and/or labour market outcomes may not necessarily have high well-being outcomes due to vulnerabilities and lack of resilience. Low well-being of immigrants can be detrimental to their integration process and therefore, to the overall well-being of the host country. Policies and efforts should focus on increasing the academic, social and emotional resilience of immigrants in order to overcome individual vulnerabilities and increase well-being. The chapter will examine a set of principles that could guide the design and implementation of policies and practices to support the overall well-being of immigrants and refugees.

The academic, social and emotional resilience of immigrant students

Resilience refers to children’s positive adaptation, both overall and in key areas, namely academic, social, emotional and motivational. These are key determinants of immigrant children’s current well-being and are key indicators of these children’s capacity to thrive economically, socially and emotionally as adults. The size of the disadvantage that immigrants face varies across dimensions of resilience and countries.

To investigate immigration-related disadvantages in a broad measure of resilience, which encompasses academic, social and emotional dimensions, a single indicator of academic and socio-emotional well-being was built. Students are considered to be academically sound and socially and emotionally resilient if they attain baseline academic proficiency, report a sense of belonging at school and report being satisfied with life.

Figure 3.1 reports the percentage of academically resilient and overall resilient immigrant students. Results show that, on average across OECD countries, only about half of academically resilient immigrant students were also resilient in other well-being dimensions. Significant differences exist across countries of destination. In Macao (China), the percentage of academically resilient immigrant students was the largest (88%), but the percentage of immigrant students who were considered overall resilient was just above the OECD average (31%). In Colombia, France, Macao (China), Montenegro, the Slovak Republic and Tunisia, less than 40% of immigrant students who were academically resilient were also socially and emotionally resilient. By contrast, in Finland and the Netherlands, over 70% of immigrant students who were academically resilient were also socially and emotionally resilient.

Figure 3.1. Academically, socially and emotionally resilient immigrant students
Figure 3.1. Academically, socially and emotionally resilient immigrant students

Note: Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of immigrant students who were academically resilient. Academically resilient students are those who reach at least PISA proficiency level two in all three PISA core subjects – math, reading and science. Socially resilient students are those who reported that they “agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement “I feel like I belong at school” and “disagree” or “strongly disagree” with the statement “I feel like an outsider at school”. Emotionally resilient students are those who reported a life satisfaction of 7 or above on a scale from 1 to 10.

Source: OECD, PISA 2015 Database.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933939638

Academic and social adjustment of immigrant students: origin and destination country effects

The academic performance and social well-being of immigrant students is significantly related to their country of origin and of destination. Students from different countries of origin residing in the same country might experience different adversities and adjustment. This is the result of socio-economic disparities and linguistic differences between students, but also of the cultural gaps, geographic proximity and historical ties between host and destination countries. Students from the same country of origin have different academic and well-being outcomes across different host countries. The interaction of host- and origin-country characteristics influences the academic and social resilience of immigrant students in different ways.

Results from Figure 3.2 show that the interaction of students’ country of origin, country of birth and the outcome being observed give rise to very different outcomes. Second-generation immigrant students from Iraq were more likely to be academically resilient in Denmark, while they were more likely to be socially resilient in Finland. The same is not true for second-generation immigrant students from the same country and in the same two host countries. First-generation immigrant students from Pakistan were more likely to be academically resilient in the United Kingdom than in Denmark, but they were more likely to be socially resilient in Denmark. By contrast, second-generation immigrant students from Pakistan were more likely to be both socially and academically resilient in the United Kingdom.

The figure also shows that some host countries might be particularly effective at securing the well-being of students, irrespective of their country of origin. First-generation immigrant students from Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia are more likely to be socially resilient in Denmark than in the other host countries considered. However, the same is not true for second-generation immigrant students (for example those from Somalia). Other countries might be more effective at integrating students from certain countries of origin, due to historic and linguistic affinities. For example, second-generation immigrant students from Pakistan are more likely to be academically and socially resilient in Pakistan.

Figure 3.2. Immigrant students’ academic proficiency and sense of belonging at school, by origin and host country
Percentage of immigrant students from the same country of origin attaining baseline academic proficiency and reporting a sense of belonging in various host countries
Countries in blue denote the country of origin and countries in black denote the country of destination
Figure 3.2. Immigrant students’ academic proficiency and sense of belonging at school, by origin and host country

Note: Estimates for academic proficiency are obtained by pooling data from the PISA 2006, 2009, 2012 and 2015 databases. Estimates for well-being are obtained by pooling data from PISA 2003, 2012 and 2015. Countries written in blue denote the country of origin and countries in black denote the country of destination. Results reported in blue and white refer to students' academic performance, while those reported in grey and black refer to their sense of belonging. The average performance by immigrant group and host country accounts for differences in socio-economic status. It corresponds to the predicted performance of the group if all immigrant students who migrated from that country of origin and all the non-immigrant students across all the host countries shared the same socio-economic status of the average student. Students who attain baseline academic proficiency are those who attain at least proficiency Level 2 in all three core PISA subjects: science, reading and mathematics. Students who report a sense of belonging at school are those who reported that they “agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement “I feel like I belong at school” and “disagree” or “strongly disagree” with the statement “I feel like an outsider at school”.

Source: OECD, PISA 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012 and 2015 Databases.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933939657

The ability of education systems to foster different forms of resilience

The discussion so far has shown that academic resilience does not necessarily imply resilience in other well-being outcomes and that education systems may have different abilities to support each type of resilience for students with an immigrant background. Table 3.1 shows the relative risk for immigrant students of not being resilient compared to native students by resilience outcome and host country.

Table 3.1. Relative risk for immigrant students of not being resilient compared to native students, by resilience outcome

Country

Not attaining baseline academic proficiency

Not reporting a sense of belonging at school

Not reporting being satisfied with life

Not reporting low schoolwork-related anxiety

Not reporting a high motivation to achieve

Value

Ranking

Value

Ranking

Value

Ranking

Value

Ranking

Value

Ranking

Hungary

0.865

1

0.983

6

0.740

1

0.932

2

1.074

23

Australia

0.928

2

0.765

1

m

m

1.103

15

0.763

11

Canada

0.937

3

0.928

3

m

m

1.092

13

0.689

3

New Zealand

1.058

4

0.847

2

m

m

1.010

4

0.808

14

Israel

1.084

5

m

m

m

m

1.025

5

1.361

27

Turkey

1.133

6

1.231

14

1.133

4

0.996

3

1.482

28

Ireland

1.179

7

1.264

16

1.241

13

1.072

11

1.065

22

United Kingdom

1.252

8

0.952

4

1.276

14

1.059

10

0.546

1

Chile

1.310

9

0.979

5

1.303

16

1.029

6

1.126

25

Latvia

1.341

10

1.453

22

1.152

6

1.168

19

0.838

16

United States

1.428

11

1.047

7

1.176

7

1.053

8

1.036

20

Czech Republic

1.494

12

1.234

15

1.085

2

1.054

9

0.751

9

Mexico

1.524

13

1.457

23

1.527

24

1.258

25

1.656

29

Greece

1.550

14

1.373

21

1.203

9

1.094

14

1.044

21

Italy

1.586

15

1.278

17

1.152

5

1.052

7

0.834

15

Slovak Republic

1.743

16

1.895

28

1.435

23

0.918

1

1.201

26

Spain

1.827

17

1.775

27

1.405

21

1.087

12

0.843

17

Netherlands

1.898

18

1.219

13

1.111

3

1.240

23

0.650

2

France

1.959

19

1.090

8

1.421

22

1.194

21

0.733

7

Luxembourg

2.009

20

1.538

25

1.183

8

1.396

28

0.865

18

Iceland

2.077

21

1.612

26

1.401

20

1.169

20

0.740

8

Austria

2.220

22

1.141

10

1.355

17

1.271

26

0.759

10

Slovenia

2.309

23

1.185

12

1.228

12

1.106

16

0.875

19

Belgium

2.384

24

1.313

19

1.299

15

1.168

18

0.690

4

Germany

2.444

25

1.149

11

1.208

10

1.257

24

0.773

13

Switzerland

2.516

26

1.296

18

1.370

19

1.519

29

0.772

12

Denmark

2.602

27

1.336

20

m

m

1.123

17

0.703

6

Japan

2.974

28

1.470

24

1.222

11

1.202

22

1.097

24

Finland

3.014

29

1.110

9

1.357

18

1.325

27

0.693

5

Note: All ratios are statistically significant. Students who attain baseline academic proficiency are students who reach at least PISA proficiency Level 2 in all three core PISA subjects: science, reading and mathematics. Students who reported a sense of belonging at school are those who reported that they “agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement “I feel like I belong at school” and “disagree” or “strongly disagree” with the statement “I feel like an outsider at school”. Students who reported being satisfied with life are those who reported a life satisfaction of 7 or above on a scale from 0 to 10. Students who reported low schoolwork-related anxiety are those who reported that they “disagree” or “strongly disagree” with the statements “I often worry that it will be difficult for me taking a test” and “Even if I am well prepared for a test, I feel very anxious”. Students who reported high motivation to achieve are those who reported that they “agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement “I want to be the best, whatever I do”.

Source: OECD, PISA 2015 Database.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933940056

Immigrant students were at least twice as likely as native students to fail to achieve baseline levels of academic proficiency in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Japan, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Switzerland. By contrast, immigrant students in Australia, Canada and Hungary were as likely as native students to fail to achieve baseline academic proficiency.

In most countries, immigrant students are less vulnerable when it comes to sense of belonging at school than they are when considering academic proficiency. However, in Iceland, the Slovak Republic and Spain, immigrant students were considerably less likely than native students to report a sense of belonging at school. In particular, in the Slovak Republic, immigrant students were almost twice as likely as native students to report a weak sense of belonging at school. In Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, immigrant students were at a lower risk of reporting a weak sense of belonging at school.

In France, Iceland, and Spain, immigrant students were considerably less likely than native students to report being satisfied with their life. In Austria, Finland, Luxembourg and Switzerland, they were considerably more likely than native students to report high levels of schoolwork-related anxiety.

In most countries, immigrant students expressed greater motivation to achieve compared to native students. In particular, in Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands, immigrant students had about 30% less risk of reporting low motivation compared to native students and in the United Kingdom immigrant students had 46% less risk of so reporting. In Israel and Mexico, immigrant students were more likely than native students to report low motivation to achieve.

The table suggest that countries differ greatly in the dimensions of well-being to which immigrant students are most vulnerable. For example, while immigrant students in Belgium, Finland, Germany and Slovenia appear to be particularly vulnerable to poor academic proficiency but not to other aspects of well-being, students in Mexico, the Slovak Republic and Spain appear to be particularly likely to have only a weak sense of belonging at school and to report low satisfaction with life.

The non-labour market outcomes of adult immigrants

While employment and wages are important for adults’ well-being, non-economic factors also contribute to well-being and to the smooth functioning of societies as a whole. These factors are becoming increasingly important in the policy discourse. Examining the broad well-being of migrants is useful in identifying alternative benchmarks of integration. Labour market integration is important for migrants because it enables them to acquire economic resources, gives them a sense of purpose and provides opportunities for social bonding. It is important for host communities because their participation in the labour market contributes to the economic and social well-being of the country. However, in order to understand how and why people develop a sense of the belonging to a community it is also important to consider immigrants’ broader life experiences.

Health is an important outcome, both in itself and as a potential determinant of differences in labour market participation and performance, and in engagement in lifelong learning activities for all adults. For example, adults who are highly proficient in information processing skills might be better able to manage their health and, as a result, might be in a better position to use their skills in the labour market.

Results from PIAAC show that, on average across participating countries, the shares of immigrant and native adults who reported to be in excellent or very good health are similar. However, in Chile, England (United Kingdom), Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Spain and Singapore, immigrants were more likely than natives to report being in good health. By contrast, in France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands and Sweden, they were less likely to report being in good health.

Interpersonal trust is a strong predictor of individual well-being (Helliwell and Wang, 2010[1]). Figure 3.3 shows the percentage of immigrants and natives who reported that they disagree or strongly disagree that only few people can be trusted. In 12 OECD countries, natives were more likely than immigrants to report that they strongly disagree or disagree that only few people can be trusted; in Denmark and the Netherlands the differences between the two groups are particularly large. For example, in Denmark, 46% of natives, but only 32% of immigrants reported that they disagree or strongly disagree that only few people can be trusted, a difference of 14 percentage points. In the Netherlands, 33% of natives but only 22% of immigrants reported the same, a difference of 11 percentage points.

Figure 3.3. Immigrant adults and interpersonal trust, by immigrant background
Percentage of immigrants and natives who report disagreeing or strong disagreeing that if you are not careful other people will take advantage of you
Figure 3.3. Immigrant adults and interpersonal trust, by immigrant background

Note: Immigrants are defined as those participants whose country of birth is different than the country in which they sat for the test. Statistically significant differences are marked in bold. Estimates based on a sample size less than 30 are not shown (Japan, Poland and Turkey).

Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of immigrants who report disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that “if you are not careful other people will take advantage of you”.

Source: Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) (2012, 2015).

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933939676

From evidence to action: Policies and practices to promote the overall well-being of students with an immigrant background

This chapter has highlighted major differences in the academic, social and emotional outcomes of native students and students with an immigrant background. There is a large degree of variation in the vulnerability of different groups of students and such variation differs systematically, depending on the country in which they (or their parents) had settled, the characteristics of the schools they attend and of their families.

Defining resilience using multiple indicators that reflect academic, social and emotional well-being implies a clear role for education systems in promoting the full development of children with an immigrant background. Examining different sets of vulnerabilities that accompany direct and indirect displacement and the fact that they might affect students’ sense of themselves is imperative to design effective policies. While education systems clearly can and should play a role in promoting the well-being of students with an immigrant background, their role should be seen in light of a broad and co-ordinated effort encompassing the education, health, social and welfare systems, and potentially involving partnerships among schools, hospitals, universities and community organisations.

Adopt the “CHARM” Framework for a resilience approach

In the past couple of decades the resilience approach has been increasingly used in youth studies, but has been hardly applied to research on international migration and integration (Smith, 2006[2]). Building upon a strength based perspective, the resilience approach puts more emphasis on support mechanisms with an underlying objective of mobilising the potential of children and their resources (Wong, 2008[3]). In other words, it is an attempt to identify personality characteristics as well as environmental resources to moderate the negative effects of stress (Bernard, 1991[4]); (Kirby and Fraser, 1997[5]); (Masten, 1994[6]); (Werner and Smith R.S., 1992[7]).

The aspects well-being that are compelling for immigrant students include academic performance, socio-emotional well-being and motivational drive for the future. Immigrant children’s academic literacy in different topics (math, science and reading) shows how well they do in school today and predicts their preparedness for life as adults. Their social relations, feelings about their (school) life and views for the future are indicative of how adjusted they are now, but also positive and confident for the future. The resilience framework helps assess where children stand in relation to these different dimensions of life and investigate how some children cope better with adversity and challenges than others.

One of the underlying objectives of the resilience approach is to move away from a deficit model of resilience and adjustment (Wong, 2008[3]). This objective is particularly crucial when studying the case of immigrant children who at times are perceived as a liability for host countries. Instead of focusing on the weaknesses of immigrant children, the resilience approach illustrates the potential of individual students whereby their capabilities are recognised. In the presence of multiple factors that put immigrant children at risk, the resilience approach identifies characteristics that help them cope with adversity and challenges. The resilience approach has a wider focus on the social environment that shapes the experiences of children. By paying equal attention to family, school and country characteristics, it permits the identification of other contextual and structural factors that explain children’s adjustment processes (Ungar, 2011[8]).

The core features of the resilience framework have been translated into a tool to define policy objectives for equity in learning and well-being outcomes of immigrant students in school (Bilgili, 2017[9]). The "CHARM" framework helps to assess the extent to which destination country policies and practices support the educational and socio-emotional well-being of immigrant children. It evaluates whether policies consider C “cumulative adversity”, H “holistic approach”, A “adjustment as a dynamic process”, R “relational development” and M “multilevel approach”. Accordingly, the CHARM framework also helps to assess the extent to which destination country policies and practices support immigrant students’ resilience (Bilgili, 2017[9]).

The first component is the idea of “cumulative adversity”, which implies that the level and depth of challenges faced by children may be higher for some children than others depending on their experiences, and consequently some children may be more vulnerable than others. Policies should distinguish between different experiences of migration (for example between first and second-generation immigrant children or refugee and unaccompanied children) and consider the combination of the migration experience with other adversities such as a low socio-economic background.

The second component refers to having a “holistic approach” towards children’s well-being, addressing their multidimensional development and not just one dimension. The effectiveness of a holistic approach is dependent on the complementarity and coherence between policies. That is to say, policies targeting one dimension of children’s lives should not negatively affect their well-being in another domain, or from a more positive perspective, policies regarding different life domains should enhance each other’s positive effects.

The third approach is based on the idea that “adjustment is a dynamic process” and that adjustment in different dimensions may change over time. In other words, policies that have a long-term perspective and are able to adjust to the needs of immigrant students can promote resilience among immigrant students in a more sustainable way.

The fourth element is the theory of “relational development”, which highlights the central role that risk and protective factors play in shaping the likelihood that children will be able to overcome initial disadvantage. Policies and practices should explicitly consider the removal of risk factors and the promotion of protective factors at different levels (individual, family, school) as a way to promote the resilience of immigrant students. .

The last element is the “multilevel approach”, which emphasises the importance of not only focusing on the child but also their social network and environment. In this perspective, policies and programs should assemble and promote the collaboration between the actors involved in the lives of immigrant children (such as children, their families, school staff and the wider community).

Table 3.2 presents policy goals that are associated with each of the five policy approaches. The CHARM policy analysis framework aims to assess to what extent countries and jurisdictions take into account these policy goals. Evaluating how policies are documented, drafted, discussed and implemented is crucial for a systematic CHARM analysis. For an example of how the CHARM framework is applied to evaluate policy goals and approaches, see (Bilgili, 2017[9]) for a study on the education policies in Ontario, Canada.

Table 3.2. CHARM Policy analysis framework and policy goals

Resilience framework

Policy approaches

Policy goals

C

Cumulative adversity

Identification of vulnerable groups

  • Identification of challenges related to migration

  • Combination of challenges due to migration with other types of challenges

  • Targeted support for different types of immigrant students

H

Holistic approach

Coherent and complementary policies

  • Promoting multiple dimensions of student well-being

  • Identification of associations between different dimensions of well-being

A

Adjustment as a dynamic process

Immediate and continuous support

  • Immediate support for school enrolment

  • Continuous support in post-enrolment period

  • Identify of critical periods of risk

  • Monitoring of multiple outcomes in the long run

R

Relational development

Identification of protective and risk factors

  • Identification of individual, family-, school- and community-related protective and risk factors

  • Identification of specific factors for immigrants and refugees

  • Documentation of evidence, strategies, measurements

  • Consideration of broader structural and sociological issues

M

Multilevel approach

Family, school and community involvement

  • Promotion of student resilience in schools

  • Encouragement of parental involvement in school

  • Wider community involvement, including non-immigrants

Promote the overall well-being of students with an immigrant background

In Ontario, Canada, “Developing child and student well-being means supporting the whole child – not only the child’s academic achievement but also his or her cognitive, emotional, social and physical well-being” (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014[10]). Promoting the well-being of children helps ensure that students can be better learners and excel in school. The board has developed a well-being framework as a guide for schools and the district to ensure the socio-emotional, cognitive and physical well-being of students (Bilgili, 2017[9]). For example, the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (OCDSB) aims to enhance the use of resources to improve the well-being of all learners by 2019 (OCDSB, 2015[11]).

An effective project targeting the well-being of immigrant students is the Boston Hospital SHIFA (Supporting the Health of Immigrant Families and Adolescents) project. Since 1992, more than 5 000 Somali refugees and immigrants have settled in Boston, Massachusetts (United States). While many Somali youth suffer from mental health problems related to trauma and stress, few receive the help they need because of cultural or other barriers. Based at the Lilla G. Frederick Pilot Middle School in Boston, the project provides culturally appropriate services, from prevention to full intervention, including parent workshops, home visits and phone calls, teacher training, student groups and direct intervention for students. The programme works with schools for one to two years to develop skills among the school staff to address mental health and cultural issues relevant to the Somali refugee experience. An evaluation of Project SHIFA suggests that community-wide acceptance of the programme led to high rates of engagement by children and families and resulted in a significant decrease in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms over eight months. Involvement in Project SHIFA is also associated with greater parental involvement with the school, increased sense of belonging at school, and a reduction in immigrant students’ rejection of school (Ellis et al., 2013[12]).

The Bridges programme, based at New York University (NYU) in New York City (United States), also aims to build immigrant parents’ resilience by strengthening their cultural identity. The prevention programme seeks to enhance the well-being of young children attending New York public schools by providing consultation to teachers and a workshop series to parents of students in first grade. Consultation includes education on cultural competence, ethnic socialisation, and common mental health problems among young children. Consultants, a team made up of NYU Child Study Centre clinicians and community representatives, help teachers use behaviour-management techniques, incorporate cultural activities in the classroom, and engage families.

References

[4] Bernard, B. (1991), Fostering resiliency in kids: Protective factors in the family school and community.

[9] Bilgili, Ö. (2017), “The “CHARM” Policy Analysis Framework: Evaluation of Policies to Promote Immigrant Students’ Resilience”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 158, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/164a7643-en.

[12] Ellis, B. et al. (2013), “Multi-tier mental health program for refugee youth”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 81/1, pp. 129-140, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029844.

[5] Fraser, M. (ed.) (1997), Risk and resilience in childhood.

[1] Helliwell, J. and S. Wang (2010), “Trust and well-being”, Working Paper Series, No. 15911, National Bureau of Economic Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w15911.

[6] Masten, A. (1994), “Resilience in individual development: Successful adaptation despite risk and adversity”, in Wang, M. and E. Gordon (eds.), Educational Resilience in Inner-City America: Challenges and Prospects.

[11] OCDSB (2015), “Framework for Student Well-being”, OCDSB Communications and Information Serivces and Inclusive, Safe and Caring Programs.

[10] Ontario Ministry of Education (2014), “Achieving Excellence: A Renewed Vision for Education in Ontario”, Ontario Ministry of Education Publications.

[2] Smith, T. (2006), “Personality as risk and resilience in physical health”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 15/5, pp. 227-231, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00441.x.

[8] Ungar, M. (2011), “Community resilience for youth and families: Facilitative physical and social capital in contexts of adversity”, Children and Youth Social Services Review, Vol. 2011/33, pp. 1742-1748.

[7] Werner, E. and Smith R.S. (1992), Overcoming the odds: High-risk children from birth to adulthood, Cornell University Press, New York.

[3] Wong, D. (2008), “Differential impacts of stressful life events and social support on the mental health of mainland Chinese immigrant and local youth in Hong Kong: A resilience perspective”, British Journal of Social Work, Vol. 38/2, pp. 236-252.

End of the section – Back to iLibrary publication page