Francisco A. Villarruel

An ecological, risk-factor examination of adolescents' sexual activity in three ethnic groups

DANIEL F. PERKINS University of Florida This study examines the extent to which the ecological, risk-factor approach for studying sexual activity in samples of mostly European Americans is useful for explaining adolescent sexual activity in three ethnic groups. We hypothesized that as exposure to risk factors increased, so would the likelihood of sexual activity in all the ethnic groups. Ethnic and gender differences in the relationship between risk factors and sexual activity were also examined. We found significant risk factors at all three levels of the social ecology. There was little support for the notion that risk factors predicting sexual activity differ among the ethnic groups, although we found a few gender differences. The results of these analyses highlight similarities among the three ethnic groups. Key Words: adolescents, African Americans, ecological perspective, Latinos, risk factors, sexual activity. Small and Luster (1994) proposed an ecological, risk-factor model for understanding why some teens are sexually active and others are not. Central to this model is the concept of cumulative risk, which posits that as exposure to risk factors increases, the probability of becoming sexually active also increases. The model also proposes that the risks adolescents are exposed to can be organized into four categories representing different aspects of the adolescents ecology: (a) individual characteristics, such as low academic ability; (b) family factors, such as low levels of parental monitoring; (c) extrafamilial factors, such as low attachment to the school, living in economically distressed neighborhoods, and being pressured by peers to engage in risk-taking behaviors; and (d) macrosystem influences, such as cultural values, media messages about sexuality, and public policies to reduce rates of teenage pregnancies (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1989; Small & Luster, 1994). In a study with an ethnically diverse sample (51 % European American) from a community in the Southwestern United States, Small and Luster (1994) found initial support for this model. However, differences among ethnic groups were not examined in that study. Only 1% of female adolescents who were exposed to zero risk factors were sexually active, compared with 80% of those who were exposed to eight or more risk factors. Among male adolescents, 15% of those exposed to zero risk factors were sexually active, and 93% of those with scores of five or more risk factors were sexually active. A discriminant analysis showed that significant risk factors for sexual activity were found at all levels of the social ecology that were examined (i.e., individual, family, extrafamilial contexts) for both males and females. Similar results were obtained with a European American sample from Wisconsin (Small & Luster, 1990). This study utilizes Small and Lusters conceptual model to examine factors related to sexual activity among adolescents from three ethnic groups-African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans. Because the model has been tested primarily with samples of European American adolescents, of particular interest to us was the usefulness of this model for predicting sexual activity among African American and Latino adolescents. Also of interest was whether or not the same risk factors were associated with sexual activity in each of the three ethnic groups. Although the risk factors associated with sexual activity may be similar across ethnic groups, we were hesitant to assume, a priori, that no differences would be found in the predictors of sexual activity across ethnic groups, given the diverse experiences of different sociocultural groups in the U.S. Relatively little research has compared factors related to sexual activity across all three ethnic groups, and the research that has compared two or more of these three groups has not produced consistent results. Our particular interest in testing the ecological, risk-factor model on African American and Latino adolescents was prompted by a number of findings. …

Community Youth Development: Programs, Policies, and Practices

Preface Acknowledgments 1. Community Youth Development: Partnership Creating a Positive World - Daniel F. Perkins (Pennsylvania State University), Lynne M. Borden (University of Arizona), Joanne G. Keith (Michigan State University), Tianna Hoppe-Rooney, & Francisco A. Villarruel (Michigan State University) Part I: Individual Issues 2. The African-American Child & Positive Youth Development: A Journey from Support to Sufficiency - Edna Olive (ROCKET, Inc.) 3. Research Realities & a Vision of Success for Latino Youth Development - Michael C. Rodriguez (University of Minnesota), Diana Morrobel (Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center), & Francisco A. Villarruel (Michigan State University) 4. Positive Youth Development in Urban American Indian Adolescents - Tamara C. Cheshire & Walter T. Kawamoto (California State University, Sacramento) 5. Facilitating Positive Development in Immigrant Youth: The Role of Mentors & Community Organizations - Jennifer G. Roffman, Carola Suarez-Orozco (Harvard University Graduate School of Education), & Jean E. Rhodes (University of Massachusetts, Boston) 6. The Role of Gender in Enhancing Program Strategies for Healthy Youth Development - Jill Denner (ETR Associates) & Amy Griffin (Michigan State University) 7. Adolescent Sexuality & Positive Youth Development - Stephen T. Russell (University of California, Davis, & 4-H Center for Youth Development) & Nikki Sigler Andrews 8. Positive Development for Youth with Disabilities: Lessons Learned from Two Stories of Success - Esther Onaga, Marsha Carolan, Cathryn Maddalena, & Francisco A. Villarruel (all of Michigan State University) Part II: The Intersection of Youth and Community Programs 9. A Serious Look at Leisure: The Role of Leisure Time & Recreation Activities in Positive Youth Development - Linda L. Caldwell & Cheryl K. Baldwin (both of Pennsylvania State University) 10. Working Hand in Hand: Community Youth Development & Career Development - Theresa M. Ferrari (Ohio State University) 11. Workforce & Youth Development for Court-Involved Youth: Barriers & Promising Approaches - David Brown, Edward DeJesus, Sarah Maxwell, & Vincent Schiraldi 12. The Character of Moral Communities: A Community Youth Development Approach to Enhancing Character Development - Karen L. Pace (Michigan State University) 13. Youth Civic Development: A Logical Next Step in Community Youth Development - Constance Flanagan & Beth Van Horn (both of Pennsylvania State University) 14. Giving Youth a Voice in Their Own Community & Personal Development: Strategies & Impacts of Bringing Youth to the Table - Melissa S. Quon Huber (Michigan State University), Jeff Frommeyer, Amy Weisenbach, and Jennifer Sazama Part III: Youth Professionals, Communities, and Youth 15. Key Elements of Community Youth Development Programs - Daniel F. Perkins (Pennsylvania State University) & Lynne M. Borden (University of Arizona) 16. Positive Youth Development: The Role of Competence - Angela J. Huebner (Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University) 17. Adults Who Make a Difference: Identifying the Skills & Characteristics of Successful Youth Workers - Nicole Yohalem (The Forum for Youth Investment) 18. The Essential Youth Worker: Supports & Opportunities for Professional Success - Joyce A. Walker (University of Minnesota) 19. Community Youth Development: Youth Voice & Activism - Francisco A. Villarruel (Michigan State University), Daniel F. Perkins (Pennsylvania State University), Lynne M. Borden (University of Arizona), & Joanne G. Keith (Michigan State University) Author Index Subject Index About the Contributors

Participation in Structured Youth Programs: Why Ethnic Minority Urban Youth Choose to Participate--Or Not to Participate.

This study examines the cultural and contextual factors that influence the decisions of underrepresented urban youth, who identify themselves as Black/ African American, Latino, Arab, or Chaldean, to participate in youth programs. Although youth programs are increasingly recognized for their positive influences, little is known about the factors that influence a young persons decision to participate. Using the concept systems method, participants engaged in “brainstorming sessions” that led to more in-depth discussions about why youth participate in youth programs. Overall, youth emphasized how youth programs help young people stay off the streets, learn new skills, avoid boredom, and provide opportunities for fun and enjoyable activities. The perceived barriers preventing young people from participating differed between genders and ethnicities and included barriers related to personal decisions, peer influence, and parental restrictions.

Challenges and Opportunities to Latino Youth Development: Increasing Meaningful Participation in Youth Development Programs.

This study examines the cultural and contextual factors that influence Latino participation in youth programs. Although youth programs are increasingly recognized for their positive influences, little is known about the factors that influence a young person’s decision to participate. In this study, 67 Latino youth were asked about the reasons youth choose to and choose not to participate. Utilizing the Concept Systems method, youth participated in three phases of data collection—brainstorming, sorting, and ranking—to provide an in-depth understanding of reasons for and barriers to participation. Overall, youth ranked personal development and confidence as their top reasons for participation. Participants also ranked factors for participation higher than barriers to participation. Gender and intergenerational differences are discussed in more detail.

Urban School Leaders and the Implementation of Zero-Tolerance Policies: An Examination of Its Implications

This article examines the responses of school principals from an urban school district to Michigans zero-tolerance policy. We specifically seek to understand how school leaders interpret and implement the policy and how their administrative discussions subsequently affect the educational experience of children in urban schools. Given that a disproportionately high number of African American and Latino students are negatively affected by this policy, how do school leaders in predominantly African American districts implement it? The findings in this study reveal that the disparate interpretation of the zero-tolerance policy among school leaders and its implementation negatively affects the educational experience of urban students.

What a Difference the Community Makes: Zero Tolerance Policy Interpretation and Implementation

The implementation of zero tolerance policies raises important questions. In this article we explore how zero tolerance policies are interpreted, implemented, and enforced differently in urban, rural, and suburban districts, and how this results in unequal numbers of expulsions and suspensions. Using a policy analysis framework, we explored how administrators from economically and culturally distinct communities developed an understanding of zero tolerance policy. In some cases, administrators modified the policy to meet the needs and culture of their districts, while in other situations, administrators adhered to the policy as written. The varying interpretations allowed some children to remain in school for particular offenses while other children were expelled immediately for similar infractions. Our data show that this policy adversely impacts a disproportionately higher number of students color in urban school districts.

Culture, Race, and Zero Tolerance Policy: The Implications

ABSTRACT Litanies of issues have emerged because of state-mandated zero tolerance policies across the country. Issues such as suspensions and expulsions over toy guns, verbal assaults, and taking an overthe-counter drug have outraged parents, students, and educators. This paper discusses concerns raised by school administrators and their responsibility to implement zero tolerance policy in their buildings. Specifically, we summarize the array of interpretations of this policy among building principals that subsequently led to differences in the way it was implemented, and in the end, impacted students enrolled in both urban and rural school districts.

Checkpoints: Building Capacity to Enhance Program Impact Through Evaluation

American society is faced with pervasive problems confronting individuals, families, and communities. Issues of child and youth development, of economic competitiveness, of environmental quality, of violence and crime, and of health and health care, require creative solutions and the design, deployment, and evaluation of innovative public policies and intervention programs. There is increasing pressure for universities to take an active role in the development of innovative solutions to these societal problems. Michigan State University has responded to such pressures to design and deliver knowledge applications, in part, through its Applied Developmental Science Program (Fitzgerald, Abrams, Church, Votruba, & Imig, 1996; Lerner, Lerner, Nguyen, Pease, Reiling, Firlan, White, & Freel, 1994). The overarching goal of the ADS Program is to establish university-community partnerships that focus on resolution of community-defined problems.

The Plight of Latino Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Considerations for Mental Health Treatment

Latino youth are disproportionately represented at each point in the juvenile justice system, and receive harsher treatment than non-Latino White youth, even when charged with the same offenses. This chapter explores how mental health and trauma contribute to the overrepresentation of Latino youth in the juvenile justice system, and analyzes the infrastructure in which mental health services are delivered to this population. Recommended solutions point to the need for courts, facilities, and service providers to use culturally and linguistically competent approaches when serving Latino youth and their families.

The 32nd Annual National Council on Family Relations Media Awards Competition

The 32nd Annual National Council on Family Relations Media Awards Competition* The 32nd annual National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) Media Competition was hosted by the Department of Family and Child Ecology and the College of Human Ecology, Michigan State University, during May and June of 2000. The purpose of the annual competition is to evaluate the quality and conceptual content of videos, to endorse excellence in the production of films with themes relevant to family issues, to promote the effective use of these resources, to encourage high standards in the development of creative learning opportunities, and to disseminate media competition results. Entries solicited were placed in 1 of the following 14 categories: Addiction/Substance Abuse; Aging; Contemporary Social Issues; Families with Special Needs; Family Violence/ Abuse; Human Development; Marital and Family Issues and Communication; Mental Health, Stress, Transitions, and Crisis Management; Diverse Family Systems; Parenting Issues; Sexuality and Sex Role Development; Teenage Pregnancy and Sexuality; STD/AIDS; and other Public Service Announcements. Guidelines for submission required that all videos be firsttime entries to the competition; carry a release date of no earlier than January 1, 1998; and be available for purchase, rental, or loan on a nationwide distribution basis. Multiple entries for producer/distributor within categories were permissible, although only one video was eligible for an award within any given category. All entries, which were to be half-inch videocassette recordings, were to be received by May 15, 2000. Entries could also be submitted on CD-ROM if available. We received 97 entries, including 94 videos and 3 CDROMs. One category (STD/AIDS) did not receive more than three videos this year. All videos within this category were nonetheless reviewed by a full committee and recognized only if they met the criteria of excellence defined by the review committees. Submissions were solicited from commercial and entertainment networks (e.g., Home Box Office [HBO], Discovery Channel), educational institutions and clearing houses (e.g., universities, InJoy, Sunburst), and amateurs (both youth and adults). The judging panels included university faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students from several academic departments at Michigan State University (e.g., Family and Child Ecology, Journalism, Psychology, Communication) and Michigan State University Extension. Individuals from various community-based organizations in East Lansing also participated in this years review panels. Following the viewing of each entry, judges were asked to independently make both quantitative (79 possible points) and qualitative assessments. The evaluation form consisted of four major quantitative categories designed to measure the entries based on (a) content (30 possible points); (b) general issues (9 possible points), which included length, pacing, and flow of media entry; (c) artistic quality (20 possible points); and (d) ability to meet stated goals (20 possible points). This was followed by an overall rating, which was the sum of the four categories, and a qualitative section that asked judges for comments on the major strengths and weaknesses, as well as suggestions for improvement. Video production designations (i.e., commercial or entertainment, educational, amateur) were also considered evaluators. Each video was reviewed by at least two judges. In the event of a tie, the videos were evaluated by a third independent reviewer. If a duplicate score was awarded, the videos were honored with a duplicate award. This years competition marks a departure from previous years in that three winners per category were identified if (a) entries from the three classifications (amateur, commercial or entertainment, and educational) were available and if (b) they were deemed meritorious. Hence, winners are listed honoring educational, amateur, commercial/entertainment entries, or a combination of these categories. …