Transcript TTADisasterMentoringx

Trauma, Natural Disaster, and
the Transition to Adulthood
Hurricane Katrina 2005
 Timeline
- Hurricane Katrina came into the Gulf on August 25, and increased to
a Category 5 (winds peaking at 175 mph) by August 28.
- Mandatory evacuation of New Orleans ordered on August 28.
- Estimates are that ~1M (of ~1.2M) residents evacuated.
- Landfall in Louisiana: August 29. Category 3 with winds of ~125 mph.
- Extensive wind damage.
- 53 levee breaches produced extensive flooding:
- 80% of the city of New Orleans was flooded as of September 2, with
water levels reaching 20 feet.
- It took weeks to pump the city out.
- Both a “natural” and “man made” disaster.
Hurricane Katrina
 Overall effects:
- Total costs estimated to be $81.2 billion.
- $30 billion in Federal aid.
- 1836 deaths, majority in Louisiana.
- 90,000 square miles declared a disaster area (Equal to the entire land
mass of the UK)
- Displaced 650,000 people
- Destroyed 217,000 homes
- 60% of housing stock in New Orleans city was destroyed
- 30% of housing stock in New Orleans MSA was destroyed
 New Orleans City lost 29.1% of its population between 2000 and
2010. (Detroit lost 22.2%)
The Opening Doors Sample N=1019, at baseline
 92% female
 85% black
 19% married
 Average age 26
 98% ever worked
 71% receiving government benefits.
 52% currently employed
 43% first in family to attend college
 69% had access to a working car
 Average age of children 3 years
 A disproportionate number come from the 9th Ward.
Baseline Survey
11/03-2/05
N=1019
12 Month Survey
Sample A
12/04-8/05
N=492
Post Katrina Survey
Sample A
5/06-2/07
N=402
Response Rate 82%
Qualitative
Interviews
N=57
Hurricane Katrina
8/25/05
Second Follow Up
Spring 09-10
Samples A and B
1019 eligible
N=720
Response Rate 70.6%
Genetic Study N=270
Post Katrina 12 Month
Sample B
3/06-2/07
N=309
Response Rate 58%
Qualitative
Interviews
N=63
Qualitative Interviews N=120
 First Wave Conducted after the 2006-2007 survey and linked to
survey responses (57 interviews)
 Second Wave Conducted after the 2009-2010 survey and linked to
survey and previous qualitative responses. (63 interviews)
 Equal number of people who were back in New Orleans, and who
had relocated to Texas.
 Covered Hurricane Experiences, life history, politics, intergroup
relations, experiences of young adulthood, and questions about how
their children are doing.
 Transcribed and coded using Atlas Ti.
 Interviews were linked to the longitudinal survey data to
contextualize the interviews and to give a rich understanding of the
trajectories of individuals.
Advantages of Our Sample
 Most studies of disasters do not have data on people before the
disaster. We had two waves of data on Sample A and one wave on
Sample B before the hurricane. Our data included
- physical and mental health
- economic resources
- social support
- social trust
- future aspirations and expectations
- measures such as optimism, self esteem, confidence
 Disasters have unequal impacts, generally exacerbating inequality
and differentially affecting women, the poor, and racial minorities
 The scope of Katrina makes it a very unusual and important disaster
 Disasters are seldom studied longitudinally. We really do not know
a lot about long term recovery.
Distribution of individual applications for assistance from FEMA in 2007 at the Metro area level.
Longitudinal Data on Resources and Outcomes
The Overall Picture
 Psychological Resilience—defined as a return to pre-disaster levels of psychological
functioning is the normal reaction to a disaster, even though it is remarkable.
 Post traumatic growth is also widespread. Defined as subjective psychological gains
directly related to the trauma they endured.
 There is a lot of research on psychological resilience, very little on how social and
economic resistance is related to it.
 We know that community ties and social networks as well as socioeconomic
resources are required for social well being. How does this affect recovery?
 Recovery in New Orleans overall has been market driven, with federal money
distributed on an individual basis.
 New Orleans is recovering—but it is a changed city. Post Katrina it is smaller, older,
more educated, less poor, fewer renters, fewer households with kids. New Orleans
has its lowest poverty rate since 1979.
 People who did not return are more likely to be poor, African American households
with children.
 Dilemma that they face: better individual opportunities outside New Orleans vs. the
sense of community they had.
 A false dilemma?
Katrina Traumas
In the week after Hurricane Katrina hit was
there a time when you:
Katrina Traumas
Percent
Did not have enough fresh water to drink
26
Did not have enough food to eat
35
Felt your life was in danger
32
Didn’t have medicine you needed
32
Needed medical care and couldn’t get it
30
With a family member who needed medical care and could not get it.
33
Didn’t know if child/children were safe
23
Didn’t know if other family members were safe
77
Were any of your relatives or close friends killed because of Hurricane
Katrina or Rita?
31
Mean # Katrina Traumas
3.14
Trauma Exposure
• 80.8% experienced home damage
• 32.1% experienced the death of a friend or
relative (Paxson, et al. 2012.)
• Rise in domestic violence and stressed
relationships with partners, even among
people who had not experienced this before
(Lowe, Rhodes, & Scoglio, in press).
Post traumatic growth
5 subscales
 Relating to Others
- “I have a greater sense of closeness to others”
 New Possibilities
- “I developed new interests”
 Personal Strength
- “ I have a greater feeling of self reliance”
 Spiritual Change
- “I have a stronger religious faith”
 Appreciation of life
- “I have a greater appreciation for the value of my own life”
Post-traumatic growth
• PTG was found to be strongly positively
associated with symptoms of PTSD
• Only those participants with high levels of PTSD
at both time points maintained high levels of
PTG over time (Lowe, Manove, & Rhodes, 2012).
Religion and PTG
• Pre-disaster religious involvement and faith
were predictive of better post-disaster social
resources which, in turn, were associated with
lower levels of psychological distress (Chan,
Perez, & Rhodes, 2010).
• Religious coping affected post-hurricane
outcomes (Chan, Perez, & Rhodes, 2012).
Child Functioning
• Concerns about child welfare affected
maternal mental health (Lowe, Chan, &
Rhodes 2011).
• There were strong associations between child
externalizing and internalizing symptoms and
maternal psychological functioning (Lowe,
Godoy, Carter, & Rhodes, 2012).
Post traumatic growth
5 subscales
 Relating to Others
- “I have a greater sense of closeness to others”
 New Possibilities
- “I developed new interests”
 Personal Strength
- “ I have a greater feeling of self reliance”
 Spiritual Change
- “I have a stronger religious faith”
 Appreciation of life
- “I have a greater appreciation for the value of my own life”
Post-traumatic growth
 PTG was found to be strongly positively associated with symptoms of PTSD
- Only those participants with high levels of PTSD at both time points maintained
high levels of PTG over time (Lowe, Manove, & Rhodes, 2012).
Other Findings
 Most people report personal and spiritual growth from the experience.
Those who blamed God or who thought that God was punishing them were
the most psychologically distressed four years later.
 For people with low social support at baseline, pet loss was the most
significant predictor of psychological distress, and for many it was long
lasting.
 People who had high Psychological Distress at baseline significantly
overestimated flood depths, relative to geocoded data.
 Optimism was one of the best predictors of who did not evacuate.
Studies to Date
 College Re-enrollment
 Religion
 Pet Loss
 Pre-disaster social support
 Barriers to Community College
Completion
 Child-related stressors
 Geographic Mobility
 Natural mentors
 Relocation Decision Making
 Intimate relationships
 Neighborhood Attainment
 Interviewer race
 Employment Trajectories
 Decisions to evacuate
 Changes in BMI
 Resilience Trajectories
 Post Traumatic Growth
 Children’s Functioning
 Conservation of Resources Theory
 Combining Quantitative and Qualitative
Methods
 Transition to Adulthood
Current studies
• Exposure meta-analysis
• PTG as a personality construct
• Disaster and Health (BMI)
• Legal issues, housing, etc.
• Community College students




How effective is youth mentoring?
When are programs most beneficial?
How does mentoring promote positive youth development?
What are the implications for policy, practice, and research?
30
# of Samples
25
20
Negative Effect
Small Effect
Small to Medium Effect
Medium to Large Effect
Large Effect
15
10
5
0
Effect on Youth
Size of Effect on Youth Outcomes
Effect sizes
0.5
Medium
Effect
0.4
0.3
0.2
EmpiricallyBased
Practices
Small
Effect
0.1
Theory-Based
Practices
0
-0.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Number of Practices
8
9
10
11
Study level variables
(moderators) associated
with different effects
Youth, Mentor, Program
Characteristics
Effect Size
Problem Behavior Involvement
Yes: .29
No: .20
Youth Gender
>50% Male: .25
<50% Male: .18
Individual/Environmental Risk
Low/High: .33
High/Low: .31
Mentors trained
Below avg: .19
Above avg: .24
Mentor role function: Advocacy
Yes: .26
No: .20
Matching based on shared interests Yes: .44!!!
No: .21




How effective is youth mentoring?
When are programs most beneficial?
How does mentoring promote positive youth development?
What are the implications for policy, practice, and research?
Stronger effects when…

Youth with

With moderate personal/environmental risk

Who are male

satisfactory, but not strong baseline relationships.
Effects of Mentoring on
Youth with Different
Relational Profiles
BASELINE
Relationship
s
Poor Relationships
Satisfactory but
not Strong
Strong
Relationships
Overall
Academics
.00
.21***
.05
Prosocial
.04
.19*
.04
Effort
.05
.18*
.00
Self-Esteem
-.04
.07
-.01
(Schwartz, Rhodes, & Chan (2010). Developmental Psychology
Stronger effects when…

Mentors who

Fit of background/ training with program goals

Play an active, advocacy role

Are sensitive to socioeconomic & cultural influences

Have higher self-efficacy

Hold positive attitudes toward youth
Measuring mentors’
attitudes
Grossman et al., 2007
• The scale asked mentors to rate how
many “kids in your community” could
be characterized by indicators of
youth development:
• work hard at school
• respect adults
• are trouble-makers
• are fun to be around
• expect things to be handed to them
• try to do their best
• are interested in learning
Mentor attitudes and youth
outcomes
Karcher, Rhodes, Herrera, &
Davidson (2010). Applied
Developmental Science
• Mentees who were
paired with high school
mentors with positive
attitudes about youth
were more emotionally
engaged with mentor
than those paired with
more negative mentors
• Those who were paired
with mentors with
negative attitudes about
youth were less
emotionally engaged

Stronger
effects
when…
Relationships characterized by

consistency

closeness

structure

appropriate meeting times

duration
The role of duration
19%
45%
< 6 mos.
6-11 mos.
36%
Grossman & Rhodes (2002). American Journal of Community Psychology
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
Attendance
< 6 months
Abstinence
6-12 months
Re-matching?
Test of Time 2: Results

Only youth in matches lasting 24 wks or
more benefited academically

All mentored youth were less likely to
skip school, regardless of match length

After controlling for selection bias:

Positive academic impacts
observed only for youth with intact
matches

No academic impact for youth with
early terminations

Negative academic impacts for
rematched youth

Grossman, Chan, Schwartz, & Rhodes (2013).
American Journal of Community Psychology.
What about gender?
• Across two data sets, only a few differences• In Ed Study—boys in same gender matches
showed lower rates of truancy
• In BBBSA study-youth in cross-gender matches
met more frequently and for a longer duration
Stronger effects when…

Programs characterized by

careful recruitment

training

monitoring

multi-modal

matching on interest
When we choose a goal
and invest ourselves in
it to the limits of
concentration,
whatever we do will be
enjoyable. And once
we have tasted this joy,
we will redouble our
efforts to taste it again.
This is the way the self
grows.”
― Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi, Flow:
The Psychology of
Optimal Experience




How effective is youth mentoring?
When are programs most beneficial?
How does mentoring promote positive youth development?
What are the implications for policy, practice, and research?
Youth
Positive outcomes
To developmental
processes…
Youth
Positive outcomes
Mentor, parent, teacher, peer
relationships
Pathways of mentor
influence
mediator
Parental/pee
r
relationship
Social-emotional
s
development
Mutuality
Trust
Empathy
Mentor
Relationship
Identity
development
Cognitive
development
Interpersonal history, social competencies, relationship
duration, developmental stage, family and community
moderators
moderators
context
Positive
Outcomes
e.g., reduced
health risk,
better psych.
outcomes
Pathways of mentor influence
Scholastic
Competence
.26
.25
.08
Grades
.29
Mentoring
Quality of
Parental
relationship
.22
.25
.26
.19
Self-worth
Skipping School
.09
.11
-.28
School value
Child Development, (2002), 1662-1671
.18
Pathways of mentor influence
-.46
Mentoring
.23
Quality of
Parental
relationship
.18
Self-worth
-.08
-.04
.10
.14
Quality of
Peer
relationships
Rhodes, Reddy, & Grossman (2005) Applied Development Science
Substance Use
Pathways of mentor influence
Academic
Attitudes
.25
.78
Grades
.27
Quality
.27
of Mentoring
Quality of
Teacher
relationship
.13
.53
.32
-.28
Self-worth
.09
Quality of
Parent
Relationship
Chan,Rhodes, Schwartz, & Lowe (2013). Journal of School Psychology
.18
School
Behavior