michael l. sulkowski, ph.d. university of arizona teresa liverzani-baker, david martin youth on...
TRANSCRIPT
Michael L. Sulkowski, Ph.D.University of Arizona
Teresa Liverzani-Baker, David MartinYouth On Their Own
Mayra Bamaca, Ph.D., Hobert Cleveland, Ph.D.
Penn State University
A Community-University Partnership to Investigate
Educational Resilience Among Homeless Adolescents
• The phenomenology of student homelessness– Risk and resiliency factors
• The community-university partnership– Youth On Their Own (YOTO)– University of Arizona; Penn State
• YOTO• Preliminary study results
Overview
Background
• Student homelessness has reached a record level in the U.S.– 1.2 – 1.6 million students (NCFH, 2014)– 72% increase since the beginning of the 2008 economic– Recession; 10% increase from the 2011–2012 school
year (Sulkowski & Joyce-Beaulieu, 2014)
– Student homelessness is a growing problem in the U.S. • Homelessness places students are risk for
experiencing negative academic and life outcomes
Academic Risks
• Academic risks– Less than 1/5 homeless students achieve
proficiency in reading (49%), math (53%), and science (52%)
– Lower GPA: M = 1.94 vs. 2.52– Less than 25% graduate high school– 45% repeat at least one grade, 25% fail a class,
and 42% are in jeopardy of failing a class (NCFH, 2014; Sulkowski & Michael, 2014)
– No difference in IQ (Buckner, Bassuk, & Weinrub, 2001)
– Residential instability were associated with markedly lower growth in math and reading achievement from 3rd through 8th grades when compared to being from a low-income yet stably housed family (Cutuli et al., 2013).
Academic Risks
Trauma and Abuse
• One study found that 84% of homeless youth screened positive for childhood physical and/or sexual abuse – 72% of these youth reported that they were
still affected by their abuse (Keeshin & Campbell, 2011)
• Other studies have found lower rates of homeless youth endorsing histories of physical or sexual abuse, usually in the 33% range (Busen & Engebretson, 2008; Kral et al., 1997; Ryan, Kilmer, Cauce, Watanbe, & Hoyt, 2000)– However, these rates are still markedly higher
than they are in the general youth population (Maikovich-Fonga & Jaffeeb, 2010)
Trauma and Abuse
Mental Health Risks
• Mental health risks– 86% of homeless youth meet diagnostic criteria
for a psychiatric disorder (Ginzler, Garrett, Baer, & Peterson, 2007)
– (53%) meet criteria for a disruptive behavior disorder (e.g., Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder), 32% for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD), 21% for a mood disorders (e.g., Depression, Bipolar Disorder), 12% for PTSD, and 10% for Schizophrenia (Cauce et al., 2000)
Substance Abuse
• Between 70 to 90% of homeless youth report abusing psychoactive substances (Edidin et al., 2012; Nyamathi et al., 2010)
• In one study that included 197 homeless youth, 86% of participants met diagnostic criteria for dependence or abuse of at least one substance (Ginzler et al., 2007)
• Within the past year:– 97% used marijuana– 94% used alcohol and tobacco– 73% used amphetamines– 56% used crack/cocaine– 40% used heroin
• In one study, youth reported using substances 22.7 days out of the previous 30 days (Rhule-Louis, Bowen, Baer, & Peterson, 2008)
Acute and Chronic Health Problems
• Homeless youth are 2.5 times more likely to have health problems and 3 times more likely to have severe health problems (Berti, Zylbert, & Rolanitzky, 2001)
• High risk for infections diseases such as influenza and hepatitis
• Diabetes and dental problems also are common
• Often present with skin and respiratory diseases such as asthma and pneumonia
Suicidality and Death
• Mortality rates for homeless youth are eleven times higher than they are in the general youth population (Shaw & Dorling, 1998)
• Research indicates that suicide completion and drug overdose are the two leading causes of mortality among homeless youth (Roy et al., 2004)
• Rates of attempting suicide among homeless youth have been found to be in the 20-40% range (Greene & Ringwalt, 1996; Molnar, Shade, Kral, Booth, & Watters, 1998; Yoder, 1999)
• Yoder, Hoyt, and Whitbeck (1998) found that more than half of homeless youth reported that they regularly experienced suicidal thoughts
Suicidality and Death
Resiliency Factors
• An under-researched area . . .• Identified protective factors:
– Positive social connections • Peers, school, and work
– Overall health– Self-efficacy– Executive functioning – Social skills– Self esteem– Adaptive behavior– Agency– Resourcefulness
Resiliency Factors
• In a study of 208 homeless youths in New York City and Toronto, self-esteem emerged as a key protective factor, predicting levels of loneliness, feeling trapped, and suicidal ideation– Buffered against the deleterious effect of
fearful attachment on loneliness– Findings highlight the role of the self-concept
in risk and resilience among homeless youth
Kidd & Shahar, 2008
Resiliency Factors
• Other studies have found both internal (e.g., positive outlook on life, high sense of self-esteem, internal locus of control) and external/contextual factors (e.g., length of time homeless, having social support) to influence outcomes associated with student homelessness (Cleverly & Kidd, 2010; Milburn et al., 2009; Reed-Victor & Stronge, 2002)
• However, studies on resiliency have only involved one- or two-point measurements and they have not allowed for a robust assessment of the impact of both risk and resiliency factors
Resiliency Factors
Starts in Summer 2015 for Credit in the Summer or Fall
Penn State Researchers in partnership with the University of Arizona and Youth On Their Own!
Investigators:Dr. Michael SulkowskiDr. Bo ClevelandDr. Mayra BamacaGraduate Researcher:Amanda Griffin
Don’t be shy! You can make a difference!
Details
• Interdisciplinary Work with Professors and Graduate Students
• Hands-on Experience Conducting Research, Mentoring, and Guidance
• Receive Course Credit• Prepare for Graduate School• Develop Skills for Your Own Research!
Opportunities
The Community-University Partnership
• Between UA and YOTO– An established inter-agency research
agreement with the UA Department of Disability and Psychoeducational Studies
• Between UA, YOTO, and Penn State (for the current project)
• Shared goals:– Collect data from students to understand
risk/resiliency factors– Allow for a greater understanding of
populations of youth served by YOTO– Allow for more targeted resource allocation– Disseminate findings to the organization,
public, and research community – Allow for data-based grant proposals
The Community-University Partnership
YOTO.org
Supports the high school graduation and continued success of kids in grades 6-12 caught in poverty, homelessness, abandonment, abuse• Financial assistance to homeless youth
• A monthly student living expense of up to $140 is earned through accountability of good grades and attendance provides a safety net in managing daily needs
• Basic human needs• Emergency needs funds• Basic needs mini-mall• Buss passes
• Guidance• Housing referral• Personal counseling• One-on-one success coaching• Medical, dental and vision care• A refurbished computer• Employment opportunities and community
involvement activities
Population served:1,468 youth enrolled in 2014-2015, compared to 1231 in 2013-2014 (19% increase)128 schools387 seniors graduated (37% increase from 2013-2014)59% female62% (ages: 12-17); 38 (ages: 19-21)60% Latina/o; 15% White; 10% African American; 9% Native American; 4% Multiracial; 2% Other
Youth on Their Own Community Report (2015)
YOTO.org
Service needs and provision13% pregnant or parenting218 receiving assistance with rental, utility, transportation, school, or medical services866 received monthly bus passes of two-way bus passes3000+ visits to our Mini-Mall for food, clothing, and personal needs
Youth on Their Own Community Report (2015)
YOTO.org
Living situation46% relative15% friend13% group home9% significant other9% couch hopping4% foster care4% alone
Youth on Their Own Community Report (2015)
YOTO.org
Reasons for Homelessness29% conflict with parent/lifestyle12% CPS removal12% verbal/emotional abuse9% parent deported/immigration problems9% parental death/illness9% parent substance abuse6% physical/sexual abuse6% extreme poverty5% parental incarceration3% pregnant/sexual orientation
YOTO.org
Youth on Their Own Community Report (2015)
PRELIMINARY STUDY FINDINGS:Daily Challenges and Adaptation of
Homeless Youth with Smartphone Data Collection
Different methods for understanding homeless youth:• Cross-sectional Studies
–Good at describing characteristics of homeless populations
• Longitudinal Studies–Good at determining characteristics of resilient vs.
non-resilient homeless adolescents
• Intensive Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) Burst Designs
–Good at capturing within-person processes that underlie resilience
Research Methods
Our Approach
Intensive EMA Burst Designs – Overview• Investigate individuals:
– During their daily lives– In the moment, or soon after their experiences
• Provide:– Hyper-reliable assessments of moods and experiences– Ability to investigate how people react to daily
challenges in their lives– Ability to capture within-person processes that predict
life outcomes
Innovative Research Method
Smartphone Device
Two surveys per day: 30-35 questions About five minutes1. Afternoon Survey (3:30 pm)
Assessed experiences and moods at school, such as positive experiences with teachers and classmates.
2. Evening Survey (9:30 pm) Assessed after-school experiences, such as homework and social experiences outside of school
• At school today, did you feel calm?
• At school today, how positive was the best social interaction with a teacher or other staff person?
• Today, I felt emotionally supported at school.
Types of Questions
Assessed risk and resiliency factors and processes that influence the academic and psychosocial trajectories of homeless students• Factors include:
– Peer and caregiver interactions• Positive = Support• Negative = Victimization
– Feelings of school connectedness– Mood– School activities, homework
• Determine within-person processes unique to unaccompanied youth
Study Goals
30-minute orientation session, including: 1. Baseline survey 2. Instructions on how to use smartphones for daily
assessments
Recruitment Process
Compensation based on amount of participation
Each survey = $ 3.50
2 surveys in one day = $ 7.00
Maximum: 2 surveys each day for 10 days = $70.00
Participants were identified by the YOTO Director • Criteria for inclusion:
– Ages 14–18– Classified as “homeless” by the McKinney–Vento
Homeless Act– Enrolled in high school– Living with non-parent
• i.e., Doubled up or “couch-surfing”• School-liaisons were provided survey materials
and smart phones to distribute to youth
Our Sample
Our Sample
Gender Female 66.7%
Grade
9th 5.9%10th 9.8%11th 31.4%12th 52.9%
Race
Hispanic/Latino 66.7%Black 9.1%White 9.1%Asian 3%American Indian or Alaska Native 3%Other 8.8%
GPA
Less than 2.0 15.7%2.0-2.9 40.4%3.0-3.5 34.8% 3.5-3.9 9.0%
How long have you lived in your current placement?
1 day - 1 week 4.5%
1 week - 1 month 6.8%
1 month - 6 months 43.2%
Over 6 months 45.5%
Sample Information
How many different homes / placements / settings have you lived in during the past year?
1 22.2%
2 33.3%
3-5 38.9%
Over 5 5.6%
Among our participants we wanted to determine within-person processes linked to
1. Self-Efficacy• Measured by perception of daily success
2. Academic Engagement• Measured by daily homework completion
Areas of Focus
• Self-efficacy and satisfaction (i.e., success) are characteristics that foster a sense of autonomy and control over one’s life
• Helps youth take action toward resiliency (Connell, Spencer, and Amber, 1994)
• Social support is a protective factor by fostering well-being and facilitating adjustment to their daily circumstances (Rew, Taylor, Seehafer, Thomas, & Yockey, 2001; Vieno, Santinello, Pastore, & Perkins, 2007).
Topic 1:Daily Perception of Success
• Homeless youth live under conditions that create barriers to social support:– Residential mobility– Lack of trust towards adults and caregivers– Lack of social skills needed to maintain positive
relationships
Barriers to Experiencing Efficacy
How do daily positive and negative relationships with close-friends affect these youth’s daily sense of success?
Daily Success: Youth’s sense of success at the end of their day (Range = 1–100, M(SD) = 67.59(31.03))
Research Question 1
• Positive Close Friend Relations: 3-item scale on whether close friends in youth’s day were supportive, understanding, and/or complementary (Range = 0–3, M(SD) = 1.00 (1.02))
• Negative Close Friend Relations: 3-item scale on whether close friends in youth’s day were angry, argued, and/or disappointing (Range = 0–3, M(SD) = 0.24 (0.58))
Predictors
Preliminary Results
Daily Success
Negative Close-FriendRelations
Average Positive Relations
Positive Close-FriendRelation
Daily-Variation
-20.14**
3.91**
-7.41**
Average Negative Relations
8.61**
Average-Level
11.6 **
• Youth with high average levels of negative peer interactions feel less self-efficacy– These youth report lower daily success regardless of daily
variability in negative exchanges
• Youth with low average levels of negative peer interactions feel more self-efficacy – However, these youth are still vulnerable to highly negative
daily peer experiences
Implications
• School engagement is a strong predictor of high school completion (Balfanz, Herzog, & Mac Iver, 2007)
• Unique barriers homeless youth face regarding education engagement:– Difficulty attending school– Weaker connection to their school– Lack of academic support outside of school
Topic 2:Daily Homework Completion
1. Do positive relations with close friends influence homework completion?
2. Do close friend influences vary based on weekday vs. weekend?
Daily Homework Completion: How much time youth’s spent doing homework (Range = 0–6, M(SD) = 1.52 (1.86))
Research Question 2
• Positive Close Friend Relations: 3-item scale on whether close friends in youth’s day were supportive, understanding, and complementary (Range = 0–3, M(SD) = 0.74 (0.89))
• Day of the Week: Monday through Sunday (Range = 1-7)
• Weekends: Saturday and Sunday (Coded as 1)
Predictors
Preliminary Results
Homework Completion
Day of the Week
Close Friend Relations Weekend
Daily-Variation
-0.14**
-0.10 0.53**
Average-Level
-0.28*
• Youth with low average levels of positive peer interactions report low levels of homework completion across weekdays and weekends– These youth report lower daily success regardless of
daily variability in negative exchanges
• Youth with high average levels of positive peer interactions report higher levels of homework completion across weekdays and weekends– They are also present more homework completion
during the week
Implications
• What are examples of daily experiences you think are over-looked by researchers?
• What daily experiences and/or actions do you think embody youth’s ability to succeed?
• What unique contexts and challenges do youth face on a daily basis?
• What could be the focus of an intervention that is aiming at improving feelings of daily success and academic involvement among these youth?
Input from the Audience
Thank You!
Team:Bo Cleveland – [email protected] Dr. Mayra Y. Bámaca at Penn StateDr. Michael L. Sulkowski at The University of ArizonaTeresa Baker & David Martin from YOTO