ORIGINAL PAPER
Reconsidering Self Care
Sara K. Bressi1 • Elizabeth R. Vaden1
Published online: 25 January 2016! Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract In light of diminishing resources in servicesettings, and the subsequent high risk for worker burnout,
self care remains an important vehicle for promoting
worker well-being. However, traditional definitions of selfcare are based in formulations about the nature of the self
that don’t reflect paradigmatic shifts in social work practice
that place increased emphasis on the multiplicity ofworkers’ selves, use of self and a collaborative frame for
the worker–client relationship. Thus, a reconsidered defi-
nition of self care is proposed that reflects intersubjective,relational, and recovery-oriented frames for practice and
posits strategies for self care that make the self appear.
Keywords Self care ! Use of self ! Worker burnout
Introduction
Social work practitioners increasingly operate in service
settings functioning under the strain of diminished resour-ces. In these contexts, self care has emerged as a core
intervention for promoting worker well-being and avoiding
the emotional exhaustion and depersonalization character-izing the condition of worker burnout. This paper recon-
siders the goals and objectives of self care in response toshifting paradigms in the field of social work that have
redefined the self, and in turn, the use of self in the contextof collaborative worker–client relationships. This recon-
sideration, based in relational models and a recovery ori-
entation, contrasts with a traditional view of self care thatseeks to maintain equilibrium between personal and pro-
fessional realms. Instead, it emphasizes nurturing selves
that are reflexive and dialogic in relationship with clients(Foucault 1997; Miehls and Moffatt 2000). In particular, the
aim of self care moves away from protecting the personal
self from the professional self and vice versa, but ratherframes self care as encompassing strategies for coping with
the uncertainties and liminal spaces that emerge from the
social work relationship. Furthermore, self care activitiesare offered as moments for the self to be touched, shaped
and re-imagined in response to professional experiences.
Burnout and Self Care
Following a landmark nationwide study of the social work
labor force, the NASW Center for Workforce Studies cau-
tioned that ‘‘social work, as a profession dedicated to helpingindividuals, families, and communities achieve the best lives
possible, finds itself at a crossroads as it tries to ensure therewill be a qualified workforce to meet the service needs of
these vulnerable populations’’ (Whitaker et al. 2006, p. 7).
Social workers increasingly function within treatment set-tings charged with doing more with less, and thus profes-
sional burnout and its sequelae remain a substantial threat to
the development of an effective and sustainable workforce.Over 40 years ago, Freudenberger (1974) helped coin the
term burnout as involving a process of ‘‘wear[ing] out, or
becom[ing] exhausted by making excessive demands onenergy, strength, or resources’’ (p. 159). A contemporary
review of the studies on burnout reported rates of burnout
& Sara K. [email protected]
Elizabeth R. [email protected]
1 Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research, BrynMawr College, 300 Airdale Road, Bryn Mawr, PA 19010,USA
123
Clin Soc Work J (2017) 45:33–38
DOI 10.1007/s10615-016-0575-4
amongmental health professionals across studies that ranged
from 21 to 67 % (Morse et al. 2012). Although the constructof burnout is underdeveloped and varies in research studies, a
widely used conceptualization fromMaslach and colleagues
(2001) delineates burnout to be a psychological syndromeinvolving emotional exhaustion, a resultant tendency
towards depersonalizing client groups, and a feeling of
decreased efficacy on the job.As such, burnout contributes toa withdrawal from engagement with clients, threatens major
disruptions in continuity of care through eliciting highturnover rates within agencies, or hastens exit from the field
all together (Chiller and Crisp 2012; Schaufeli et al. 2009).
Prior literature delineates a diversity of organizationaland person-level risk factors associated with burnout in an
effort to contextualize and ultimately combat worker dis-
tress. First, resource-strapped and insurance-driven treat-ment settings for vulnerable persons living on the margins
with complex trauma histories subject workers to higher
caseloads, demand greater resources for documentation,yet offer low levels of training and supervision (Arnd-
Caddigan and Pozzuto 2008; Newell and Nelson-Gardell
2014). Supervisory relationships are often focused onmanaging tasks and procedures as opposed to offering
space for processing reactions to client interactions (Chiller
and Crisp 2012; Figley 2002; Newell and Nelson-Gardell2014). Other forms of support such as peer debriefing may
also be discouraged by organizational structures and cul-
tures (Newell and Nelson-Gardell 2014). At the level of theindividual practitioner, a lack of personal coping strategies
and supportive relationships, both in and outside of the
workplace, put a practitioner at higher risk for burnout. Theliterature also sets a parabolic developmental frame to the
experience of burnout and suggests novice practitioners, as
well as those with a great deal of exposure to client suf-fering are at higher risk for burnout (Hunter and Schofield
2006; Newell and Nelson-Gardell 2014).
The substantial threat to client and worker well-beingassociated with burnout, coupled with workers’ embedded-
ness in resource-compromised human service agencies, has
resulted in a renewed interest in self care as a crucial strategyfor maintaining the social work labor force (Lee and Miller
2013; Whitaker et al. 2006). It is notable that the term ‘‘self-
regulation’’ now appears twice in the newly crafted list ofpractice behaviors that concretize the core competencies of
the 2015 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards of
the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE 2015). Theinsertion of this language foregrounds the critical responsi-
bility of the worker in practice to manage one’s professional
activities in part through nurturing the self.As with professional burnout, the construct of self care is
variably defined in the literature. Self care generally refers
to activities or processes that are initiated and managed bythe worker for the purpose of supporting one’s health and
well-being, attending to one’s needs, or providing stress
relief (Lee and Miller 2013; Newell and Nelson-Gardell2014). While self care might involve others such as peers,
supervisors, one’s personal therapist, family or friends, it is
presumed to be care that is by the self and for the self.
Self Care: Maintaining Equilibrium Betweenthe Personal Self and the Professional Self
Discussions of self care in the social work literatureinherently include assumptions about what the self is and
how it functions. In this discourse, the self has typicallybeen divided either implicitly or explicitly into two primary
component parts; namely the professional self and the
personal self. The professional self is the aspect of self thatis engaged at work in relationships with clients and is
guided by professional role expectations which provide the
rules of engagement for these relationships with clients.The personal self is the self that exists outside of the
workplace. The personal self is guided by other role
expectations outlined by family life, economic functions,community, and many other diverse ecologies.
This construction of the self is related to pre-modern
theoretical orientations rooted in ego psychology and sys-tems theory which construct the self organically as a sin-
gular entity that ideally functions when its component parts
are operating with balance, coherence and integrity (Miehlsand Moffatt 2000). Thus, the overarching goal of self care
activities has been to maintain equilibrium or homeostasis
within a self system such that the professional self does notimpinge on the personal self and vice versa. Within this
frame, the experience of worker burnout results from a self
that is not in balance.Inspection of the discourse on self care suggests many
iterations of how this imbalance between the personal and
the professional might emerge. These include, but are notlimited to, experiencing a severe infringement of the pro-
fessional self on the functioning of the personal self. This is
colloquially known as ‘‘bringing one’s work home at night’’(Lee and Miller 2013) and is assumed to result in a personal
self that is overwhelmed by or over-identified with the
emotional distress of clients (Berzoff and Kita 2010; Siebert2005). In contrast, a professional self may suffer from a
personal self that is too impinging on the work through an
over use of self, or when the worker’s emotional function-ing in personal relational matters is poor.
Following a review of the social work self care litera-
ture, Lee and Miller (2013) offered the following definitionof personal and professional self care;
Personal self care is defined as a process of pur-poseful engagement in practices that promote holistic
34 Clin Soc Work J (2017) 45:33–38
123
health and well-being of the self, whereas profes-
sional self care is understood as the process of pur-
poseful engagement in practices that promoteeffective and appropriate use of self in the profes-
sional role within the context of sustaining holistic
health and well-being. (p. 98)
This definition of self care draws on the idea of a self in
balance in its aim at protecting the integrity of the personal
self in an effort to be one’s best at work, alongsidefacilitating a protection of the professional self through
cautious use of self on the job.
First, in this construction, personal self care is focusedtowards behavioral strategies that promote subjective well-
being, reduce stress and promote containment of the impact
of the professional self on the personal. This includesattempts at basic regulation of the body and mind through
sleep hygiene, good nutrition, an exercise regimen, build-
ing a supportive matrix of relationships with one’s com-munity, family or peers and those activities that promote
creativity, pleasure and rest and relaxation (Lee and Miller
2013; Morse et al. 2012; Newell and Nelson-Gardell 2014).Some proposed self care strategies such as hobbies, phys-
ical activities, or socializing are also thought to promote
wellness by distracting the personal self from the profes-sional. These strategies allow for space to actively disen-
gage from or avoid professional experiences in an attemptto keep them from infiltrating personal, relational, emo-
tional and cognitive experiences (Skovholt et al. 2001).
Towards the same aim, Lee and Miller (2013) suggest thatworkers set clear boundaries around engaging in thoughts
or discussions about work while at home. Likewise, Figley
(2002) suggests this kind of disengagement is preventativeof the emotional exhaustion of burnout and purports a
worker must make ‘‘a conscious, rational effort to recog-
nize that she or he must let go of the thoughts, feelings, andsensations associated with the sessions with the client in
order to live their own life’’ (p. 1438).
Second, formulations of professional self care center onusing strategies to avoid the personal self encroaching on
one’s professional role in a way that is harmful to the self
or to the client. Lee and Miller (2013) write ‘‘maintaining[emotional] boundaries while in the professional role may
then better enable a practitioner to have the energy and
space to sustain and preserve the depth of emotional con-nection in personal relationships’’ (p. 99). In this vein,
professional self care focuses in on strategies that allow for
managing a worker’s use of self with clients. Use of selfemerged as a rejection of a historical emphasis on thera-
peutic neutrality, and is a core social work intervention that
directly draws the personal self into the work. It encom-passes a set of practitioner interventions which include
Rogerian person-centered concepts such as genuineness
and transparency, self disclosure of informational content
regarding the worker’s experiences, attributes, and identi-fications, as well as here-and-now self disclosures of the
practitioner’s emotional and cognitive processes during an
interaction with a client (Knight 2012). The profession hasa strong tradition of charging social workers to use self
conscientiously within the confines of professional role to
promote client growth. This process, which is furthered byself awareness, is considered a prerequisite for meaningful
engagement in the social work relationship (Heydt andSherman 2005; Shulman 2012).
However, use of self also ushers in a profound fear,
almost a phobia, of inviting a disruption in the equilibriumbetween the personal self and professional self (Burton
2012). Thus, professional self care as previously defined
aims to prevent use of self from going too far andunknowingly harming a client by subverting the profes-
sional self and its requisite role expectations to the personal
self (Heydt and Sherman 2005; Reupert 2007). This cau-tion is captured in the now obsolete 2008 CSWE EPAS
which directs workers to ‘‘recognize and manage personal
values in a way that allows professional values to guidepractice’’ (p. 4) highlighting the trepidation that workers
would consciously or unconsciously use their positionality
and power to subjugate the emotional needs and values ofclients to their own needs. Worse, it alludes to the fear that
a worker would engage in a gross encroachment of the
personal self by coercing or intruding on clients throughbreakage of professional role boundaries.
These current conceptualizations of self care are helpful
in encouraging practitioners to intentionally formulate selfcare plans as an aspect of professionalism. However,
constructing self care as maintaining the ideal of a singular
self with personal and professional parts that are boundedand balanced has important limitations that may discourage
engagement with clients and use of self. For example, this
perspective places the personal self in competition with theprofessional self for limited psychic resources. Subse-
quently, workers may adopt a defensive stance aimed at
protecting the personal self from the professional ordiminishing the importance of the personal self on client
interactions. In other words, in an attempt to maintain the
status quo, a resistance to the client emerges that mayoperate against change and growth in the worker and in the
client (Ghent 1990). Workers may presume the affective
and identity dysregulation spurred by interactions withclients is a sign of weakened personal boundaries or they
may begin to see clients as intruders on their psychic
wellness. This approach contrasts with viewing the intenseaffects and relational experiences inherent in therapeutic
work as an expectable aspect of the work with oppressed,
traumatized and vulnerable people that is useful forbuilding an effective client change process.
Clin Soc Work J (2017) 45:33–38 35
123
Next, when workers feel too much danger around use of
self, which may be heightened by current definitions ofprofessional self care, theymay begin to imagine they should
abandon use of self for their own protection and for protec-
tion of the client. Elements of use of self, such as self dis-closure, may take on a pejorative meaning because of
trepidation around an over-engagement of the personal self
in the professional role. In a small qualitative study, arespondent stated that he felt use of self ‘‘contaminated’’ his
work with clients, and that keeping his personal self separatewas vital for self care (Reupert 2007, p. 112). In the name of
self care, any use of self may be discouraged outright, and
instead be replaced by a sense that the personal self is closedor off-limits from one’s professional life. In turn, this posi-
tion may lead to strong prohibition against engagement with
clients emotionally or with intense intimacy and may drawworkers to construct the personal self as a closed system, held
separate and distinct and also fully subversive to the pro-
fessional self in interactions with clients (Reupert 2007).
Reconsidering the Self and Self Care
In recent decades, social work scholars and practitioners
have operated in diverse clinical and therapeutic settingsand have been influenced by paradigmatic shifts in theo-
retical orientations to practice around the construction of
self and thus, the use of self. They have steadily chal-lenged a pre-modern conceptualization of a personal self
that is separate, dissociated, or distinct from a profes-
sional self. Shulman (2012) called the separation of theself into two parts, the personal and the professional a
‘‘false dichotomy’’ (p. 37). Instead, a post-modern con-
structivist stance based in intersubjectivity and relationalmodels advocates for a self that is not a single bounded
entity but rather postulates workers have multiple selves
that are co-constructed in relationship with each client(Benjamin 1998; DeYoung 2015; Ganzer 2007; Ganzer
and Ornstein 2004; Knight 2012). These selves are ‘‘re-
flexive, complex and dialogical’’ and ideally open to theinfluence of professional relationships (Miehls and Mof-
fatt 2000, p. 339). Influenced by feminist theory, in this
view, a multiplicity of identities in the worker that occupyboth oppressed and privileged positions intersect in
complex ways and ‘‘cannot be teased apart or stand on
their own’’ (Garran and Werkmeister Rozas 2013, p. 102).In addition to redefining the self, intersubjective and
relational models have also significantly reshaped use of
self in therapeutic practice. As, Miehls and Moffatt (2000)note; ‘‘the subjective social worker can no longer illumi-
nate the struggles of another person or group of persons
from a safe distance’’ (p. 342). Relational theory shifts theclinical social worker from their role as expert and instead
encourages a stance of embracing not-knowing and
uncertainty in the clinical situation. It requires direct con-sideration and use of self in placing primacy on here-and-
now countertransferential material and relational enact-
ments that emerge in the work. As such, the strong affectsthat emerge from work with clients are transformed into
important communications from clients that must be
attended to, as opposed to avoided. Ganzer writes (2007);
Use of self in this configuration requires that the
therapist not only tolerate ambiguity and uncertaintybut also immerse herself in it; for it is by entering the
patient’s world and experiencing it that the therapist
can work with the patient to emerge from it. Thisprocess often involves an inquisitive and curious
stance on the part of the clinician and the self dis-
closure of the countertransference. (p. 119)
A relational mode of practice poses that strong emotional
and cognitive responses resulting from close connectionwith other selves is required for workers to truly empathi-
cally enter into and be with clients around a range of
experiences including those related to structural inequalitiesrelated to race, class and gender. Likewise, in inviting the
worker to be in close interaction with the client, there is also
the potential for the worker to be touched, changed, andmoved by the client’s change process. Unlike prior con-
ceptualizations of a personal self that is bounded from the
client, this frame for practice welcomes and encouragesself-discovery and poses these ‘‘risks to the self’’ as
opportunities for finding personal meaning and a clearer
acknowledgement of one’s privilege through relationshipswith clients (McTighe 2011, p. 302). In essence, the work
provides a space for the self to appear (Foucault 1997).
These therapeutic models are in sisterhood with changesin the service sector that promote an egalitarian approach
to the worker–client relationship. In particular, the recov-
ery-movement in the field of psychiatric rehabilitationalongside feminist critiques of the service system has
supported a move towards greater collaboration and part-
nership in the social work relationship. In this orientation,clients are postulated to be the experts on their own lives
and on their own care. They are held as full partners in the
change process as opposed to passive recipients of expertknowledge or good will. Most importantly, and commen-
surate with intersubjective and relational frames to thera-
peutic work, a recovery orientation requires workersbelieve they will learn and change in parallel with the
client (Stanhope and Solomon 2013).
In light of these shifts in the field, the goal of self careactivities needs reconsideration. They must incorporate and
respond to these changes in the construction of self and in
the practice modalities that increasingly ask practitioners towork in close contact with clients within the context of
36 Clin Soc Work J (2017) 45:33–38
123
uncertainty and vulnerability. As such, the following
reconsideration of the aims of self care is offered:
Self care is inclusive of agentic self-regulated activ-
ities that purposefully a.) bolster the ability to sitwithin, tolerate and understand the affective and
identity dysregulation related to experiencing vul-
nerability and uncertainty in the social work rela-tionship, and b.) make meaning of the ways workers’
selves are changed from work with clients.
First, the goal of self care is no longer limited to
decreasing anxiety from disequilibrium in the self or pro-
tecting the self from one’s professional life. Rather itshould specifically function to allow workers to tolerate the
expected affective and identity dysregulation related to
entering the client’s world (Miehls and Moffatt 2000). Insitting in these spaces, it is presumed that a worker can then
appreciate the client’s past, current relational matrix, and
attachments (Knight 2012; Miehls and Moffatt 2000).Reframed, self care activities such as exercise regimens,
mindfulness meditation, hobbies, and the like move beyond
the purpose of stress reduction or diversion. Instead, theybolster the worker’s capacity for affect regulation and for
sitting with and understanding feelings of vulnerability,
uncertainty, and identity dysregulation that emerge fromthe work (McTighe 2011).
Second, self care strategies need to include mechanisms
for meaning-making and self-discovery. Relational modelsand a recovery-orientation assume that the social work
relationship is the vehicle for interventions that produce
change in both the worker and client, in a bi-directional,co-constructed fashion. These models normalize and
encourage workers to actively reflect on the ways work
with clients brings meaning to their lives. Self care activ-ities oriented towards meaning-making might include
journaling, creative writing, artistic endeavors, peer to peer
discussions, or engagement in advocacy efforts that high-light specific self discoveries that emerge from deep
engagement with others in therapeutic contexts.
Using this reconsidered frame for self care, social workersshould be explicitly directed that emotional disturbances, or
other signs of distress are a normal and important aspect of
work with vulnerable persons. With this as a starting point,social workers may then be directed towards a range of
activities aimed at (a) moving through and coping with dis-
tress in the body andmind, (b) locating their own reactions ascommunications from clients or countertransferential
responses to clients, (c) providing spaces or opportunities for
reflection on their own internal assumptions about clientsand their own lives, (d) andworking against use of avoidance
of affects and thoughts related to clients as the primary form
of self care or frame for use of self.
Conclusions and Implications for Practice
This reconsideration of self care, rooted in a relationalframe, is aimed at sustaining workers’ capacity to enter
into and thrive in the context of work environments that
involve continued and prolonged exposure to oppressionand human suffering. Returning to the concept of burnout,
the proposed definition of self care seeks to disrupt the
drive towards being overwhelmed by powerful emotionalexperiences, and the subsequent pull to disengage from
clients who have been labeled as intrusive or ‘‘other’’. It
provides a framework for allowing the worker to anticipateand expect strong affects and increased vulnerability. As
opposed to being engulfed by these emotional experiences
or avoiding them altogether, it incorporates self carestrategies to contextualize and reflect on them. In addition,
self care activities that build and encourage meaning-
making and self-discovery directly work against psycho-logical distancing from clients through depersonalization.
It is important to offer the following caution: self care is
a necessary but insufficient response to worker burnout. Itis insufficient because agency-level supports, consistent
and process-oriented supervision, personal therapy, andpeer support are crucial for promoting safe work environ-
ments (Chiller and Crisp 2012). An over-reliance on self
care to resist work-related distress is aligned with a prob-lematic yet prevailing discourse about the amelioration of
stress and its negative outcomes. This discourse is rooted in
the medical model and frames stress as an individualproblem to be addressed with individual-level interventions
as opposed to attending to the complex social and structural
patterns that create it (Becker 2013). However, as evi-denced by the emergence of models of care such as the
sanctuary model, safety and support for workers in human
service organizations opens the door to parallel processesthat also promote client well-being (Bloom 2013). In
addition, relational work requires workers to engage in
their own therapeutic processes towards developing thecapacity to hear difficult narratives, recognize and manage
strong emotions, deal with complexity, and know them-
selves at a deep level (DeYoung 2015).The proposed focus for self care activities requires
educational programs in social work, field practicums, and
professional supervision to underpin skill-building aroundself care with theory. This paper argues for an approach to
self care that must be contextualized and understood within
a knowledge-base of relational theory. The linkagebetween theory and core social work skills is a perennial
challenge for educators and supervisors. For example, in
examining self disclosure as an aspect of use of self, arecent study (Knight 2012) suggested that clinicians’ were
often unable to connect their use of self disclosure to
Clin Soc Work J (2017) 45:33–38 37
123
evidence-based or theoretical models. Therefore, it may be
most effective for classroom and field instructors, as wellas supervisors, to concurrently discuss theory, use of self,
and self care in an effort to better integrate these concepts.
As social work theory shifts from the pre-modern para-digms, the multiplicity of workers’ selves is acknowledged
and purposefully utilized in the client–worker dyad. Self
care strategies must similarly shift to expect and acknowl-edge that these selves are both impacting and impacted by
the client. The proposed reconsideration of self care recog-nizes the dissolution of the personal and professional selves
as distinct entities. In order to help prevent burnout, this
model asks practitioners to recognize how their work placeinteractions can inform their interactions with their personal
world and vice versa. As self care models catch up with
prevailing social work theory in this way, we hope to seepractitioners enjoying deeper meaning in both their personal
lives and professional roles.
References
Arnd-Caddigan, M., & Pozzuto, R. (2008). Organizational preventionof vicarious trauma. Families in Society: The Journal ofContemporary Social Services, 36, 235–243.
Becker, D. (2013). One nation under stress: The trouble with stress asan idea. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Benjamin, J. (1998). Shadow of the other: Intersubjectivity andgender in psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
Berzoff, J., & Kita, E. (2010). Compassion fatigue and countertrans-ference: Two different concepts. Clinical Social Work Journal,38, 341–349.
Bloom, S. (2013). The sanctuary model: A best-practices approach toorganizational change. In V. L. Vandiver (Ed.), Best practices incommunity mental health: A pocket guide. Chicago, IL: Lyceum.
Burton, N. (2012). Getting personal: Thought on therapeutic actionthrough the interplay of intimacy, affect and consciousness.Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 22, 662–678.
Chiller, P., & Crisp, B. R. (2012). Professional supervision: Aworkforce retention strategy for social work? Australian SocialWork, 65(2), 232–242.
CSWE. (2008). Educational policy and accreditation standards.Washington, DC: CSWE.
CSWE. (2015). Educational policy and accreditation standards.Washington, DC: CSWE.
DeYoung, P. A. (2015). Relational psychotherapy: A primer. NewYork, NY: Routledge.
Figley, C. R. (2002). Compassion fatigue: Psychotherapists’ chroniclack of self care. JCLP/In Session: Psychotherapy in Practice,58(11), 1433–1441.
Foucault, M. (1997). Michel Foucault: Ethics subjectivity and truth:The essential works of Foucault 1954–1984. New York, NY:The New Press.
Freudenberger, H. J. (1974). Staff burn-out. Journal of Social Issues,30(1), 159–165.
Ganzer, C. (2007). The use of self from a relational perspective.Clinical Social Work Journal, 35, 117–123.
Ganzer, C., & Ornstein, E. D. (2004). Regression, self-disclosure, andthe teach or treat dilemma: Implications of a relational approach
for social work supervision. Clinical Social Work Journal, 32(4),431–449.
Garran, A. M., & Werkmeister Rozas, L. (2013). Cultural competencerevisited. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in SocialWork, 22(2), 97–111.
Ghent, E. (1990). Masochism, submission, surrender: Masochism as aperversionof surrender.ContemporaryPsychoanalysis, 26, 108–136.
Heydt, M. J., & Sherman, N. E. (2005). Conscious use of self: Tuningthe instrument of social work practice with cultural competence.The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 10(2), 25–40.
Hunter, S. V., & Schofield, M. J. (2006). How counsellors cope withtraumatized clients: Personal, professional, and organizationalstrategies. International Journal for the Advancement of Coun-selling, 28(2), 121–138.
Knight, C. (2012). Therapeutic use of self: Theoretical and evidence-based considerations for clinical practice and supervision. TheClinical Supervisor, 31, 1–24.
Lee, J. J., & Miller, S. E. (2013). A self-care framework for socialworkers: Building a strong foundation for practice. Families inSociety: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 94(2),96–103.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout.Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422.
McTighe, J. P. (2011). Teaching the use of self through the process ofclinical supervision. Clinical Social Work Journal, 39, 301–307.
Miehls, D., & Moffatt, K. (2000). Constructing social work identitybased on the reflexive self. British Association of SocialWorkers, 30, 339–358.
Morse, G., Salyers, M. P., Rolli, A. L., Monroe-DeVita, M., &Pfahler, C. (2012). Burnout in mental health services: A reviewof the problem and it’s remediation. Administration, Policy, andMental Health, 39, 341–352.
Newell, J. M., & Nelson-Gardell, D. (2014). A competency-basedapproach to reaching professional self-care: An ethical consid-eration for social work educators. Journal of Social WorkEducation, 50(3), 427–439.
Reupert, A. (2007). Social worker’s use of self. Clinical Social WorkJournal, 35, 107–116.
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2009). Burnout:35 years of research and practice. Career Development Interna-tional, 14(3), 204–220.
Shulman, L. (2012). The skills of helping individuals, families,groups, and communities. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Siebert, D. C. (2005). Personal and occupational factors in burnout amongpracticing social workers: Implications for research, practitioners,and managers. Journal of Social Service Research, 32(2), 25–44.
Skovholt, T. M., Grier, T. L., & Hanson, M. R. (2001). Careercounseling for longevity: Self-care and burnout preventionstrategies for counselor resilience. Journal of Career Develop-ment, 27(3), 167–176.
Stanhope, V., & Solomon, P. (2013). Recovery-oriented services. InV. L. Vandiver (Ed.), Best practice in community mental health(pp. 185–198). Chicago, IL: Lyceum.
Whitaker, T., Weismiller, T., & Clark, E. (2006). Assuring thesufficiency of a frontline workforce: A national study of licensedsocial workers. Washington, DC: National Association of SocialWorkers.
Sara K. Bressi is Associate Professor at the Graduate School ofSocial Work and Social Research, Bryn Mawr College. She teachescourses in foundation social work practice, human behavior, and adultdevelopment.
Elizabeth R. Vaden is a candidate for the Masters of Social Servicedegree at the Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research,Bryn Mawr College.
38 Clin Soc Work J (2017) 45:33–38
123