Does Family Structure Matter in the ... - Wiley Online Library

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENCE, 17(4), 743–766 Copyright r 2007, Society for Research on Adolescence

Does Family Structure Matter in the Relationships Between Youth Assets and Youth Alcohol, Drug and Tobacco Use? Roy F. Oman, Sara K. Vesely, Eleni Tolma, and Cheryl B. Aspy University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center

Sharon Rodine and LaDonna Marshall Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy This study investigated significant relationships between youth assets and youth alcohol, tobacco, and drug use that differ according to family structure (one- or two-parent households). Data were collected from a randomly sampled inner-city population (n 5 1,256 teenagers and 1,256 parents of the teenagers) using in-home, in-person interviews. Logistic regression analyses, stratifying by one- and two-parent household status, were conducted with nine youth assets as the independent variables and youth alcohol, tobacco, and drug use as the dependent variables. Results indicated that the associations between assets and risk behaviors varied depending upon whether the youth lived in one- or two-parent households. Continued research is warranted to further investigate associations among family structure, youth assets, and youth risk behaviors.

Alcohol, drug, and tobacco use are some of the most prevalent youth risk behaviors (Aiken, Sochalske, & Anderson, 1996; MacKay, Fingerhut, & Duran, 2000; Needleman, 2001; O’Malley, Johnston, & Bachman, 1998; U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 2000). Substantial research has documented that, compared with youth living in two-parent households, youth living in one-parent households are more likely to engage in several risk behaviors Requests for reprints should be sent to Roy F. Oman, Ph.D., Department of Health Promotion Sciences, College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, P.O. Box 26901, CHB Rm. 369, Oklahoma City, OK 73190. E-mail: [email protected]

744

OMAN ET AL.

including alcohol, drug, and tobacco use (Blum et al., 2000; Flewelling & Bauman, 1990; Oman, McLeroy, et al., 2002; Santelli, Lowry, Brener, & Robin, 2000; Upchurch, Aneshensel, Sucoff, & Levy-Storms, 1999; Young, Jensen, Olsen, & Cundick, 1991). For example, a study reported that youth living in single-mother or single-father households had higher rates of smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, and smoking marijuana (approximately 2%, 12%, and 7% higher, respectively) compared with youth living in two-parent households (Flewelling & Bauman, 1990). Other research found significant risk behavior differences between youth living in one- versus two-parent households that, although they diminished with youth age, remained significant. Seventh- and eighth-grade youth living in one-parent households were 37% more likely to have smoked and 29% more likely to have drank alcohol compared with youth in the same grades living in two-parent households; and 9th- to 12th-grade youth living in one-parent households were 17% more likely to have smoked and 6% more likely to have drank alcohol compared with youth in the same grades living in two-parent households (Blum et al., 2000). These data suggest that substantial numbers of youth are at increased risk for alcohol, tobacco, and drug use, and moreover, that youth living in oneparent households are at significantly greater risk. Because approximately 28% of our nation’s youth live in one-parent households (Child Trends, 2002; U. S. Census Bureau, 2003), there is a very large number of youth who could benefit from research and programs that specifically address factors that may lower the likelihood of youth participating in risk behaviors. Research investigating the mechanisms through which family structure (i.e., one- or two-parent households) may influence youth risk behaviors is warranted. Studies have focused on possible associations between participation in adolescent risk behaviors and neighborhood environment (Fitzpatrick, 1997), parental emotional support, or overcontrol (Upchurch et al., 1999), quality of the mother–child relationship (Davis & Friel, 2001), father’s absence from the family (Ellis et al., 2003; Hoffmann & Johnson, 1999; Thomas, Farrell, & Barnes, 1996), and a variety of other family relationship factors (Miller & Volk, 2002). For example, Hoffmann and Johnson (1999) found that risk of drug use by youth was highest in father-only households and that youth age, sex, race/ethnicity, and family income and residential mobility failed to account for the finding. The researchers speculated that the quality of parent–child socialization may be key, and that the socialization may be particularly important in regard to protecting youth from possible drug use during stressful family events such as divorce. One relatively innovative approach to investigating the relationship between family structure and risk behaviors is to explore these relation-

DOES FAMILY STRUCTURE MATTER?

745

ships from the perspective of positive youth development, examining specific positive qualities, or youth assets, which may help young people avoid risk-taking behaviors (Benard, 1990; McKnight, 1997). The concept of positive youth development has been defined by the work of Werner and Smith (1982, 1992) and later by Catalano and Hawkins, who developed the Social Development Model (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 1998; Catalano & Hawkins, 1996; Catalano, Kosterman, Hawkins, Newcomb, & Abbott, 1996). Positive youth development is based on numerous studies indicating that both individual and environmental factors (e.g., assets) can help keep youth from engaging in harmful behaviors (Benard, 1990; Garmezy, 1991; Hawkins, Catalano, Kosterman, Abbott, & Hill, 1999; Jessor, 1991; Jessor, Van den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa, & Turbin, 1995; Kirby et al., 1994; McKnight, 1997; Resnick et al., 1997; Scales, 1990). Positive youth development can be identified with a research and program approach that links risk reduction with efforts to increase protective factors, or assets, such as valuing achievement, positive Peer Role Models, and close ties to caring adults. Youth who possess these assets are believed to be less likely to participate in risk behaviors (Bogenschneider, 1996; Jessor, 1991). Catalano and others reviewed the research literature pertaining to positive youth development programs and found that 24 of 25 asset-building programs showed significant reductions in problem behaviors such as drug and alcohol use, truancy, violence, sexual behavior, and smoking (Catalano et al., 1998). Recent published studies have investigated how specific youth assets and their associations with youth risk behaviors may vary in one- versus two-parent households. Using the same database analyzed in the present study, studies assessed the association between youth assets and sexual and delinquent behaviors within the context of family structure (Oman, Vesely, & Aspy, 2005a, 2005b). Results of one study indicated that youth living in one-parent households who had Aspirations for the Future, positive Peer Role Models, Family Communication skills, or Good Health Practices related to exercise and nutrition were significantly less likely to engage in one or more sexual risk behaviors compared with youth living in one-parent households without each asset (Oman et al., 2005b). Results of the second study were similar, indicating that six youth assets were individually significantly associated with a reduction in one or more aggressive and/or delinquent behaviors of youth residing in one-parent households (Oman et al., 2005a). All of the asset/risk behavior associations stated above were nonsignificant for youth living in two-parent households. Moreover, there were few instances in which the asset/risk behavior associations were significant for youth living in two-parent households but nonsignificant for youth living in one-parent households.

746

OMAN ET AL.

These results suggest that, when considering specific risk behaviors, certain assets are uniquely important for youth living in one-parent households. Perhaps these assets are more important because they help to ameliorate the potential detrimental effects that youth might experience by living in a household lacking a second parent. One could speculate that having good Peer Role Models, Family Communication, and Aspirations for the Future, for example, may help youth who might lack the additional communication, role modeling, warmth and caring, monitoring, and other parenting attributes that a second parent living in the home could provide. Although it is beyond the scope of the study to directly investigate possible mechanisms through which assets might influence the risk behaviors of living in one-parent households, it is the intent to continue exploratory research of the family structure, asset, and youth risk behavior associations. There are a number of important factors, such as youth age, gender, and race/ethnicity, that have been found to be associated with family structure and/or youth substance abuse (Blum et al., 2000; Kann et al., 2000; Oman, McLeroy, et al., 2002; Santelli et al., 2000). The influence of these and other factors should be accounted for when investigating youth risk behaviors (Flewelling & Bauman, 1990). In the present study, youth age, gender, and race/ethnicity as well as household income and parental education are assessed and statistically adjusted for when appropriate in order to remove the influence of these potentially confounding variables. The two studies discussed above suggest that significant asset/risk behavior associations may be more prevalent and strong for youth living in one- versus two-parent households for the specific risk behaviors examined in the studies. Will this pattern of significant youth asset/risk behavior associations, which appear to emphasize the importance of assets for youth living in one-parent households, persist when considering other youth risk behaviors? The purpose of this study is to address this question by investigating how the relationships between nine youth assets and youth alcohol, drug, and tobacco use may vary according to family structure. METHOD Design Data for this study were collected as part of program evaluation activities for a positive youth development prevention project implemented in inner-city neighborhoods. The project was one of 13 community-based projects funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as part of a national teen pregnancy prevention initiative. Data were collected from 1,350 randomly selected households containing parent–teen pairs residing


747

in racially and ethnically diverse inner-city areas of two Midwestern cities with populations of approximately 500,000 each. A CD-ROM city directory was used as the sampling frame (Metromail Corporation, 1998). The CD-ROM included residences without telephone service or with unlisted telephones as well as households with telephones listed in the telephone directory. Addresses were randomly selected in blocks of approximately 10,000 listings and each address was visited to determine its status (e.g., occupied residence, vacant residence, occupied residence but no youth resident, business) and to obtain an interview when appropriate. One parent and one teenager from each household were randomly selected for interviewing when the household contained more than one teen or more than one parent of the teen. Interviews were conducted in the respondents’ homes using a computer-assisted data entry system. The teenager and parent were interviewed simultaneously in different rooms of the residence. The teenager self-administered the risk behavior questionnaire by listening to tape recorded items with headphones and entering responses into the computer. Basic demographic information was collected from both the parent and teen respondents whereas youth assets and risk behaviors data were collected only from the teen. The survey response rate was 51%, which included all refusals in addition to a percentage of the households for which we were unable to determine if an eligible teen lived in the household. An extensive description of the study methods is published elsewhere (Oman, Vesely, et al., 2002). Participants The sample was comprised of youth age 13–19 years (mean age 5 15.4 years, SD 5 1.7 years) and was 52% female. Forty-eight percent of the sample was non-Hispanic Caucasian, 23% non-Hispanic African American, 19% Hispanic, and 10% non-Hispanic Native American. Approximately 52% of the youth lived in one-parent households and about 79% of these single-parent households were mother only. Finally, 66% lived in households with reported income levels of o$35,000 and 13% of the youth’s parents had not graduated from high school. Measures Demographic variables. Depending upon the analyses, youth age was used either as a continuous variable or as a categorical variable stratified into three categories: 13–14 years, 15–17 years, and 18–19 years. Youth

748

OMAN ET AL.

race–ethnicity was defined as non-Hispanic African American, nonHispanic Native American, non-Hispanic Caucasian, and Hispanic. Family structure was assessed via the parent and was defined as two parents living in the household or one parent living in the household. Yearly parental income was stratified into three categories: o$20,000, $20,000 to $35,000 and 4$35,000. Parental education was also stratified into three categories: both parents had less than a high school education, at least one parent had completed high school, GED, or some college, and at least one parent had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Educational level of the parent not interviewed was obtained by asking the participating parent to indicate the educational level of the other parent; this was done regardless of family structure. Youth risk behaviors. Youth alcohol, drug, and tobacco use were the dependent variables in this study. The items used to measure each risk behavior were from the Prevention Minimum Evaluation Data Set (Brindis, Peterson, Card, & Eisen, 1998). Because youth assets are thought to be protective against risk behaviors, the outcomes of interest were coded in a positive direction (0 5 did report risk factor, 1 5 did not report risk factor) as the nonuse of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. Nonuse of alcohol was defined as answering ‘‘no’’ to the question ‘‘During the past 30 days, did you drink any alcohol, such as beer, wine, or liquor?’’ Nonuse of drugs was defined as answering ‘‘no’’ to the question ‘‘During the past 30 days, did you use or do any drugs such as marijuana, inhalants, methamphetamine, speed, cocaine, crack, or heroin?’’ Nonuse of tobacco was defined as answering ‘‘no’’ to the question, ‘‘During the past 30 days have you used any tobacco (smoked, dipped, or chewed)?’’ Youth assets. Specific youth assets were the independent variables in this study. Pilot studies involving asset identification and asset measurement were extensive and lasted for approximately 1 year (Kegler, Rodine, Marshall, Oman, & McLeroy, 2003; Oman, Vesely, et al., 2002). As part of the study planning process 23 focus groups were conducted with 186 adolescents. One purpose of the focus groups was to identify qualities, skills, relationships, and so forth that the youth believed would help protect them from participating in youth sexual and related risk behaviors. The youth focus group participants were recruited by study coordinators and other project staff through several organizations and strategies including school clubs, church youth groups, school counselors, community-based youth organizations, and acquaintances of youth and adults already involved in the study. The groups were stratified by gender, age, and neighborhood with roughly four focus


749

groups for each of the study neighborhoods. Approximately half (49.5%) of the participants were male, and the mean age was 15.2 years. The youth had diverse ethnic/racial backgrounds: 19% African American, 22% Vietnamese American, 16% American Indian, 30% Hispanic, and 14% white (Kegler et al., 2003). Initial focus group topics were based on a published literature review of promising approaches to preventing teen pregnancy (Philliber, 1997; Philliber & Namerow, 1995). Based on this review and other literature searches, the following topics were included in the focus group guide: neighborhood context, use of unstructured time, involvement in organized activities, peer groups, norms and attitudes about teen pregnancy, relationships with adults, and Aspirations for the Future (Kegler et al., 2003). All of the focus group sessions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. A detailed coding scheme was developed to capture themes from the discussion; each transcript was independently coded by two members of the evaluation team. Additional in-depth content analysis was then performed on these text retrievals to identify major themes, some of which eventually became youth assets. Preliminary reports were prepared by the evaluation team and reviewed by the study coordinators to verify that the results matched their interpretation of the focus group results (Kegler et al., 2003). In an effort to further narrow the focus of the study in regard to important youth assets, a ‘‘Teen Asset Menu’’ was created that was based on the literature reviews and focus group results (Oman, Vesely, et al., 2002). The menu included peer influence, Community Involvement, educational achievement, relationships with adults, life skills, job opportunities, pregnancy avoidance and ‘‘other’’ (e.g., safety, creative activities). Several possible assets were listed under most topic areas. For example, high expectations, achievement motivation, school engagement, homework, and bonding to school were potential assets listed under the educational achievement topic area. Another series of meetings were conducted with research personnel, including neighborhood coordinators, to further develop the asset concepts. The neighborhood coordinators had the opportunity to add additional asset concepts under any topic area. Eventually, nine priority assets emerged as a result of this process. Each asset was extensively discussed and subsequently refined in a series of meetings (Oman, Vesely, et al., 2002). The nine assets were ultimately labeled Family Communication, Peer Role Models, Aspirations for the Future, Responsible Choices, Community Involvement, Non-Parental Adult Role Models, Constructive Use of Time, Good Health Practices (exercise/nutrition), and Cultural Respect.

750

OMAN ET AL.

TABLE 1 Descriptive Data for Each Youth Asset Construct Asset Non-Parental Adult Role Models Peer Role Models Family Communication Use of Time (groups/ sports) Use of Time (religion) Community Involvement Aspirations for the Future Responsible Choices Good Health Practices (exercise/nutrition)

# of Items Cronbach’s a 7

.74

6 4

.81 .61

4

.71

2

.71

6

.78

2

.67

6

.69

1

—

Example Item

‘‘You know adults that encourage you often.’’ ‘‘Are most of your friends responsible?’’ ‘‘How often do you talk to an adult in your household about your problems?’’ ‘‘You participate in an organized activity after class.’’ ‘‘How often do you participate in church/ religious activities?’’ ‘‘You work to make your community a better place.’’ ‘‘As you look to your future, how important is it to you that you stay in school?’’ ‘‘You can say no to activities that you think are wrong.’’ ‘‘You take good care of your body by eating well and exercising’’

Finally, a literature search was conducted to identify appropriate items for asset measurement. Items with established reliability and validity from previously published research were used when possible. Items were created and pretested if appropriate items were not available in the literature. Factor analyses and reliability tests were used in scale construction. Scales were constructed with items loading .40 and above on one factor and with reliability scores (Cronbach’s a) of at least .60. Table 1 lists each asset, number of items representing each asset, Cronbach’s a, and an example item. Cronbach’s a also were calculated by youth race/ethnicity for each asset. The race/ethnicity-specific as ranged from .57 (Aspirations for the Future Asset for Native American youth) to .85 (Peer Role Models asset also for Native American youth). A full description of the development and construction of the assets is published elsewhere (Oman, Vesely, et al., 2002). Assets were reported as present (1) or absent (0) on the basis of youth mean responses to the items included in the asset scale. Items comprising each scale were generally scored from 1 to 4 (4 5 the most positive response) and an individual was said to have the asset if the individual’s mean score was 3 or higher. These cut points indicated that the positive behaviors were reported as ‘‘usually or almost always,’’ ‘‘very important or extremely important’’ or ‘‘agree or strongly agree.’’ We chose to use


751

cutoff points instead of a continuous measure of the assets in order to ease interpretation of the results. That is, with an asset cut-point approach youth either have the asset or they do not; whereas with a continuous asset score youth have graduations of an asset score that can be difficult to interpret in regard to scientific and practical implications. Considerable subsequent analyses and peer-reviewed publications support the idea that the cut points are acceptable and that they serve as critical markers (Aspy et al., 2004; Oman, Vesely, Aspy, McLeroy, & Luby, 2004; Vesely, Wyatt, Oman, Aspy, Kegler, Rodine, et al., 2004). Analysis The sample size for the statistical analysis varied from 1,250 to 1,256 depending on the outcome of interest. The number of youth in one-parent households ranged from 647 to 653 and from 602 to 603 in two-parent households. Youth were not included in the analysis for one or more of the following: missing demographic data (n 5 49), race–ethnicity other than those listed in Table 2 (n 5 20), or missing data on the outcome of interest (alcohol nonuse n 5 28, drug nonuse n 5 32, tobacco nonuse n 5 25). All analyses were performed separately for the one- and two-parent household stratum. An alpha of .05 was used unless otherwise stated. Univariate associations between the dichotomous risk factor and the demographic variables were assessed using a w2 test. The unadjusted odds ratios (OR) between each asset and the absence of the risk factor were calculated using logistic regression. Adjusted ORs were calculated using multiple logistic regression between assets and the absence of the risk factor while controlling for possible confounders. Youth age (continuous), gender, and race, and parent income and education were only controlled for if the univariate analysis indicated a p value of .20. Interactions between each asset and each demographic variable were assessed in each logistic regression with the a level set at .01. For significant interactions, logistic regression was conducted stratifying by the demographic variable that showed the significant correlation. RESULTS Table 2 presents frequencies and proportions for the sample stratified by one- and two-parent household status. Table 3 presents youth assets that were significant only for either one-parent households or two-parent households, not both. Table 4 presents the stratified analysis of the significant asset by demographic variable interactions.

752

OMAN ET AL.

TABLE 2 Percentages and Associations Between Youth and Parent Demographics for Each Risk Behavior by Family Structure No Alcohol Use One Parent Demographic Variable Total Youth age 13–14 15–17 18–19 Youth race Non-Hispanic African American Non-Hispanic Native-American Non-Hispanic Caucasian Hispanic Youth gender Female Male Parent income o20k 20–35k 435k Total Parent education oHigh school, both parents One parent had high school, GED or some college At least one parent had bachelor’s degree or higher a

Na 653

Two Parent Na

% b

77

No Drug Use

602

%

One Parent Na

83 647

No Tobacco Use

Two Parent Na

% b

86

603

%

One Parent Na

92 653

Two Parent Na

% b

69

603

% 82

217 85 225 92 216 334 73 306 80 332 102 70nn 71 61nn 99

89 228 96 215 80 227 96 84 305 88 336 66 305 76 83 70 96nn 102 56nn 71 62nn

199

88

88

88 198

92

88

94 199

84

88

91

63

78

63

79

87

63

87

63

62

81

61 315

79

97 68nn 138

83n

292

71 313

99 69nn 138 348 305

78 303 75 299

61

84 292 78

82 316

96 83nn 136

85 347 81 300

86 303 85 300

92 293 93

91 351 92 302

289 233 131 653

79 75 74 77b

102 207 293 602

86 79 84n 83

283 233 131 647

86 85 86 86b

102 206 295 603

91 92 92 92

67

69

91

81

67

81

89

96

497

77 404

89

82n 107

83 490

83

90

85 406

91n 108

64

286 71 234 63 133 76nn 653 69b 66

91 498

93

70 304 68 299

89

84 80n

101 208 294 603

85 78 83 82

91

85

68 405

80

79n 107

89n

65

Sample size for each subgroup. Significantly different from two-parent households (p .05). n .05op .20 (w2 or linear trend)—controlled for in adjusted analysis. nnp .05 (w2 or linear trend)—controlled for in adjusted analysis. b

753


TABLE 3 Adjusted Odds Ratios (OR) With 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) From Individual Multiple Logistic Regression Models Stratified by Family Structure for Youth Assets on Risk Behaviors

Risk Behavior Asset No alcohol use Family Communication Good Health Practices (exercise/nutrition) Community involvement No drug use Use of Time (groups/sports) Aspirations for the Future No tobacco use Non-Parental Adult Role Models Use of Time (groups/sports)

Adjusted–One Parent Household N

OR

653 Interaction (see Table 4) 653 1.30b

Adjusted–Two Parent Household

95% CI

N

OR

95% CI

—

602

2.08a,n

(1.33, 3.26)

(.88, 1.90) 601 Interaction (see Table 4)

—

651

2.58b,n

(1.28, 5.22) 601

.84a

(.47, 1.50)

646

1.81b,n

(1.03, 3.20) 601

1.18c

(.64, 2.20)

570

1.78b

(.99,3. 21) 554

2.34c,n

(1.15, 4.76)

575

1.82d,n

652

2.15d,n

(1.14, 2.90) 554 Interaction (see Table 4) (1.40, 3.31) 601 1.44e

— (.89, 2.35)

a

Adjusted for youth age and parental income. Adjusted for youth age and race and parental education. c Adjusted for youth age. d Adjusted for youth age and race and parental income and education. e Adjusted for youth age, gender, and race, and parental education. n p .05. b

Alcohol Nonuse The percent of youth living in one-parent households who reported no alcohol use (77%) was significantly lower (p 5 .009) than the percent of youth in two-parent households who reported no alcohol use (83%). Table 2 shows significant linear trends for youth age for both one- and twoparent households for alcohol nonuse. As age increased, the likelihood that the youth reported no alcohol use decreased. Hispanic and Caucasian youth in one-parent households were significantly less likely to have reported no alcohol use in the past 30 days compared with youth of other races living in one-parent households.

754

OMAN ET AL.

TABLE 4 Adjusted Odds Ratios (OR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for Significant Interactions Indicated in Table 3

Risk Behavior Asset

One-Parent Household N

OR

95% CI

No alcohol use Family Communication Non-Hispanic African American 199 5.92a,n (2.29, 15.32) (.65, 8.86) Non-Hispanic Native American 63 2.40a Non-Hispanic Caucasian 292 1.79a,n (1.04, 3.09) Hispanic 99 .91b (.39, 2.15) Good Health Practices (exercise/nutrition) o$20,000 $20,000–$35,000 4$35,000 No tobacco use Non-Parental Adult Role Models Non-Hispanic African American Non-Hispanic Native American Non-Hispanic Caucasian Hispanic

Two-Parent Household N

101 207 293

OR

95% CI

9.48b,n (2.70, 33.25) .90b (.44, 1.84) 1.25b (.63, 2.49)

82 1.21c (.12, 12.12) 55 61.01c,n (5.39, 689.99) 291 2.71c,n (1.13, 6.50) 126 1.63c (.56, 4.78)

a

Adjusted for youth age and parental education. Adjusted for youth age. c Adjusted for youth age and gender. n p .05. b

Four unique significant asset/no alcohol use associations according to family structure were indicated. There was a significant main effect for the Family Communication asset for youth living in two-parent households (Table 3) and a significant interaction with youth race/ethnicity for youth living in one-parent households (Table 4). Youth living in two-parent households with the Family Communication asset were about 2.1 times more likely to report no alcohol use compared with youth without the asset who lived in two-parent households. Analyses of the significant interaction indicated that African American and Caucasian youth in the one-parent households with the Family Communication asset were about 5.9 and 1.8 times more likely, respectively, to report no alcohol use compared with youth of the same race living in one-parent households who did not possess the asset (Table 4). There was a significant interaction between the Good Health Practices (exercise/nutrition) asset and parental income for youth living in two-parent households (Table 4). Analyses of the significant interaction indicated that youth living in two-parent households in the lowest income


755

category were about 9.5 times more likely to report no alcohol use if they had the Good Health Practices (exercise/nutrition) asset compared with youth living in two-parent households in the lowest income category who did not have the asset. There was a significant main effect for the Community Involvement asset within the one-parent household stratum (Table 3). Youth living in one-parent households with the Community Involvement asset were about 2.6 times more likely to report no alcohol use compared with youth living in one-parent households without the asset. The Peer Role Models, Use of Time (religion), and Responsible Choices assets were significant in both one- and two-parent household strata as well as in the unstratified sample. The Non-Parental Adult Role Models and Use of Time (groups/sports) assets were not significantly related to alcohol nonuse in the complete or stratified samples. The Aspirations for the Future asset was significant in the unstratified sample and not significant in either stratified sample. The Use of Time (religion) and Responsible Choices assets showed a differential impact for girls but not boys in the unstratified sample; girls with either of the assets were significantly more likely to report nonuse of alcohol than girls without the asset after adjusting for age, race, and family structure (Oman, Vesely, Aspy, McLeroy, Rodine, et al., 2004). An analysis of the unstratified sample has been published elsewhere (Oman, Vesely, Aspy, McLeroy, Rodine, et al., 2004).

Drug Nonuse The percent of youth living in one-parent households who reported no drug use in the past 30 days (86%) was significantly lower (p 5 .001) than the percent of youth in two-parent households who reported no drug use (92%). Table 2 shows that youth 15–17 years of age residing in two-parent households were less likely to report no drug use compared with youth in the same stratum who were younger or older. African American youth in one-parent households were significantly more likely to have reported no drug use compared with youth of other races living in one-parent households. One unique significant asset/no drug use association was found in each family structure stratum (Table 3). Youth residing in one-parent households with the Use of Time (groups/sports) asset were about 1.8 times more likely to report no drug use compared with youth living in one-parent households without the asset. Also, youth living in two-parent households with the Aspirations for the Future asset were about 2.3 times

756

OMAN ET AL.

more likely to report no drug use compared with youth living in twoparent households without the asset. The Non-Parental Adult Role Models, Peer Role Models, Family Communication, Use of Time (religion), and Responsible Choices assets were significant in both the complete and stratified samples. The Good Health Practices (exercise/nutrition) and Community Involvement assets were significant in the unstratified sample and nonsignificant in the stratified sample. An analysis of the unstratified sample has been published elsewhere (Oman, Vesely, Aspy, McLeroy, Rodine, et al., 2004).

Tobacco Nonuse The percent of youth living in one-parent households who reported no tobacco use (69%) in the past 30 days was significantly lower (po.001) than the percent of youth in two-parent households who reported no tobacco use (82%). Table 2 shows significant youth age linear trends for tobacco use for both one- and two-parent households. As age increased, the likelihood that the youth reported no tobacco use decreased. African American youth in one-parent households were significantly more likely to have reported no tobacco use compared with youth of other races living in one-parent households. Youth living in one-parent households with parent income in the $20,000–$35,000 category were less likely to report no tobacco use compared with youth living in one-parent households with parental income that was higher or lower. Two assets, Non-Parental Adult Role Models and Use of Time (groups/ sports), had unique relationships with no tobacco use that depended upon family structure. Youth living in one-parent households with the NonParental Adult Role Models asset were about 1.8 times more likely to report no tobacco use compared with youth living in one-parent households without the asset (Table 3). Analyses of the significant interaction indicated that Native American and Caucasian youth living in two-parent households who had the Non-Parental Adult Role Models asset were about 61 times and 2.7 times, respectively, more likely to report no tobacco use compared with youth living in two-parent households of other races who did not have the asset (Table 4). Finally, youth living in one-parent households with the Use of Time (groups/sports) asset were about 2.2 times more likely to report no tobacco use compared with youth living in one-parent households without the asset. The Peer Role Models, Family Communication, Use of Time (religion), Good Health Practices (exercise/nutrition), Aspirations for the Future, and Responsible Choices assets were statistically significant in the un-


757

stratified and stratified samples. The Community Involvement asset was significant only in the unstratified sample. An analysis of the unstratified sample has been published elsewhere (Atkins, Oman, Vesely, Aspy, & McLeroy, 2002).

DISCUSSION The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate how the relationships between nine youth assets and youth alcohol, tobacco, and drug use may vary according to family structure. Past research found that significant asset/risk behavior associations may be more prevalent and stronger for youth living in one- versus two-parent households for youth risk behaviors such as sexual behavior, aggression, and delinquent behavior (Oman et al., 2005a, 2005b). The descriptive results, stratified by family structure, suggest that youth living in one-parent households are more likely to report using alcohol, drugs, or tobacco in the past 30 days. This is consistent with previous research that has shown that youth living in one-parent households are more likely to participate in risk behaviors (Blum et al., 2000; Oman, McLeroy, et al., 2002; Santelli et al., 2000). Other results presented in Table 2 were also not unexpected. For example, the results showed that older youth generally were more likely to report using alcohol, drugs, or tobacco. Older teens have consistently exhibited a higher prevalence of participation in risk behaviors (Barnes & Welte, 1986; DuRant, Smith, Kreiter, & Krowchuk, 1999; Murray, Perry, O’Connell, & Schmid, 1987; Vanderschmidt, Lang, Knight-Williams, & Vanderschmidt, 1993). Other significant differences, found in the youth race and parental income stratum, also are similar to previously published studies (Blum et al., 2000; Oman, McLeroy, et al., 2002; Santelli et al., 2000). This study’s results generally did not follow the same asset/risk behavior by family structure pattern that was found for other risk behaviors. In the present study, there were four significant main effects and one significant interaction indicated only for youth living in one-parent households, and two significant main effects and two significant interactions indicated only for youth living in two-parent households. Thus, when considering alcohol, drug, and tobacco use, the results suggest that certain assets may be particularly important for youth living in one-parent households and also that different assets may be particularly important for youth living in two-parent households. This was not the case for other risk behaviors in which a substantial number of significant asset/risk behavior relationships were found only in the one-parent household

758

OMAN ET AL.

sample and few such asset/risk behavior relationships were found only in the two-parent household sample (Oman et al., 2005a, 2005b). Other results also support the notion that assets are as important for youth living in two-parent households as they are for youth living in oneparent households. For example, three, five, and six assets were significant for both family structure strata for nonuse of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco, respectively (Atkins et al., 2002; Oman, Vesely, Aspy, McLeroy, Rodine, et al., 2004). Future research may help explain these apparently contrasting results by risk behaviors through the investigation of specific characteristics of family structure, risk behaviors, assets, or even youth (although youth age, race, and gender were accounted for in the present study). The mechanism of action for these asset/risk behavior associations within the context of family structure is clearly open to speculation at this early stage of investigation. For example, the association between the youth’s constructive Use of Time related to groups or sports and no drug or tobacco use in one-parent households may suggest that the asset provides an ‘‘extended’’ or ‘‘external’’ family in the form of team associations and that the shared goal of the group’s success is sufficient incentive to eschew drug and tobacco use. The results involving youth with good Family Communication are also open to interpretation. Good Family Communication was significantly associated with alcohol nonuse, but not with drug and tobacco nonuse; the association differed not only by family structure but was differentially related to youth race/ethnicity. These results suggest that: (1) Family Communication may be protective of alcohol use for youth living in two-parent households regardless of other demographic factors and (2) Family Communication may be protective from alcohol use for youth living in one-parent households only for African American and Caucasian youth. These results may reflect the presence of a strong parental figure in the household who, irrespective of the presence of a second parent, effectively communicates values and behavioral expectations to forgo alcohol use. A pertinent question is why was this particular asset/risk behavior association not significant for Native American and Hispanic youth living in one-parent households? The varying association of youth assets with specific risk behaviors also was apparent in subgroups of two-parent families. For example, youth living in two-parent households who had Good Health Practices regarding exercise and nutrition and whose families were in the lowest income category were more than nine times more likely to report no alcohol use compared with youth without these Good Health Practices who lived in two-parent households in this income category. This asset/risk behavior association, which was not significant for other income categories, suggests the possibility that youth with few financial resources make their


759

decision to not use their limited resources on alcohol based on personal health values and that valuing Good Health Practices is sufficient to protect them from alcohol use. However, if this explanation is correct, one might expect that it might also apply to youth living in one-parent households. The absence of such a finding for youth living in one-parent households serves as another indication of our nascent understanding of the asset/risk behavior relationships. Another significant interaction in the two-parent stratum was also quite interesting. Native American youth living in two-parent households with Non-Parental Adult Role Models were 61 times more likely to report no tobacco use compared with Native American youth living in two-parent households who did not have Non-Parental Adult Role Models. This protective effect may be the result of involvement in a larger community or tribal organization such that youth in this type of environment are monitored and encouraged by adults outside the immediate family. However, this result is interpreted with caution, as data from just 55 Native American youth were involved in the analyses. For instance, in the analyses of a substantially larger sample size, a much smaller OR (OR 5 2.7), albeit a significant OR, was found for Caucasian youth (n 5 291) in regard to nonuse of tobacco and the presence of Non-Parental Adult Role Models. Finally, all youth living in one-parent households who had Non-Parental Adult Role Models were significantly less likely to use tobacco, suggesting the possible importance of this asset for youth in one-parent households regardless of other demographic factors. The youth and parent participants in the present study comprised a culturally diverse population from 10 inner-city neighborhoods. The results suggest that when considering alcohol, drug, and tobacco use some assets may be more important for youth living in one-parent households and some more important for youth living in two-parent households, indicating that family structure should not be ignored as an important contextual influence on youth behavior. Future research might focus on the stability of these asset/risk behavior relationships across other samples or cultures (e.g., younger versus older teens, boys versus girls, lowerversus higher-income families, rural teens versus urban teens, and teens from different areas of the U.S. or world). Similarly, further study is necessary to test for differences in the measurement, prevalence, and importance of assets for various youth populations and cultures. For example, those assets that are most salient for girls, older teens, or inner-city youth may not be the same assets that are salient for boys, younger teens, or rural youth, respectively. Qualitative studies also might further help to explain the roles of family structure, assets, youth decision making, and culture in regard to risk behavior participation.

760

OMAN ET AL.

If further research indicates that specific youth assets can protect youth from engaging in risk behaviors, it will be important to encourage development of these assets in youth. Parents, youth-serving programs, schools, congregations, and communities are searching for ways to more effectively prevent alcohol, drug, and tobacco use among their teens. Understanding which protective factors, or youth assets, are associated with reducing those adolescent health risk behaviors is important. For example, because Community Involvement appeared to be a significant protective factor related to a reduction in alcohol use for youth in one-parent households, youth could be given the opportunity to participate in a wide variety of volunteer service activities during their adolescent years, particularly those they help plan and lead. Among adolescents in one-parent households, those who were significantly involved in activities related to groups and sports or who had positive Non-Parental Adult Role Models were significantly less likely to use tobacco and/or drugs. This implies that youth can benefit from participation in organized activities, clubs, projects, or sports teams and from having a number of positive, stable, caring adults and mentors in their daily lives other than their parents. The results although tentative, suggest that Native American and Caucasian youth, regardless of their family structure environment, can particularly benefit from having non-parental adult mentors involved in their lives. The idea of collectivism, which refers to the core values of interdependence, cooperation, and mutual assistance, is one promising approach to reducing youth risk behaviors with the assistance of other adults. Collectivism is a cultural tradition of many Native American people who live in networks of extended families, clans, or tribal groups in order to support their values (Waller, Okamoto, Miles, & Hurdle, 2003). Finally, for all youth living in two-parent households and for African American and Caucasian youth living in one-parent households, those with good Family Communication skills were significantly less likely to consume alcohol, and youth living in two-parent households with Aspirations for the Future were significantly less likely to use drugs. Unlike some other assets, promoting these two assets may not necessitate elaborate intervention programming; rather, developing these assets involves a process of on-going communication with youth in an open, caring, respectful, trusting manner and encouraging young people to have hopes, dreams, goals, and plans for the future. This perspective perhaps suggests an opportunity for adult learning and behavior change in some instances but also suggests a commitment of adults’ time and energy to be engaged in the lives of youth through families, schools, youth-serving organizations, neighborhoods, and communities.


761

The emergence of a focus on youth assets in the field of positive youth development is not without controversy. There is the notion that youth assets are simply the opposite of risk factors. For instance, if youth respondents report that they do not have good Family Communication this implies that they have poor Family Communication. Whether this is true or not primarily depends upon item wording, range of possible responses, and how researchers operationally define good and poor Family Communication. Although assets in this study clearly do have their negative counterparts, nearly all of the asset items included in this study were specifically designed to measure a positive quality. Items were worded using positive language and respondents had to typically indicate in the affirmative in order to possess an asset. If youth respondents did not indicate a particular asset score higher than the asset cutoff point, it should be interpreted only that they did not have that particular asset according to study criteria and not necessarily that they had a risk factor. Thus, although the results of separate studies focusing on factors such as poor versus good Family Communication or poor versus good role peer models can be compared, it should be with the caveat that the risk and protective factors were likely not assessed using instrumentation that makes them mirror opposites. There are limitations to this study, several of which are measurement issues. Alcohol, drug, and tobacco use were assessed only for the past 30 days and therefore it is unknown what behavior occurred outside this time period. The youth may have provided inaccurate, socially acceptable responses to the risk behavior questions even though they were allowed to read the questions and enter their responses into a computer unobserved. This protocol may have reduced the number of socially acceptable responses. The measure of family structure does not account for the possibility that there may be adults living outside the household who serve in a parental role for some youth participants, or conversely, that the reported parent(s) living in the household actually contribute little in regard to parenting the youth participant. Youth self-report of assets and risk behaviors were not cross-checked via items administered to their parents. The reliability coefficients for three of the asset constructs were below .70 and the Good Health Practices (exercise/nutrition) asset was assessed with a single item. In addition, the substantial number of analyses conducted in the study increases the possibility of a type I error occurring; however, because this is an exploratory analysis we believe this is appropriate. Also, the moderate response rate raises questions about the generalizability of the results. However, no significant differences were found when the racial/ethnic and household income results from the sample were compared by zip codes with census data from the same neighborhoods,

762

OMAN ET AL.

suggesting that the sample was representative of the intended neighborhoods. Finally, the data analyzed in this study are cross-sectional so temporal relationships between the assets and risk behaviors cannot be evaluated. In summary, this study found that specific youth assets were related to youth decisions to not participate in alcohol, drug, and tobacco use and that these relationships varied according to family structure. The notion that certain youth assets might be more protective against specific risk behaviors depending upon family structure is intriguing and should be further explored. If causal relationships are suggested, a focus on specific assets might make programmatic interventions more focused and effective.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was supported under a cooperative agreement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through the Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) Grant Number U36/CCU300430-22 and under Cooperative Agreement Number U88/CCU612534 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention awarded to the Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy. The contents of this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC or ASPH. REFERENCES Aiken, L. H., Sochalske, J., & Anderson, G. F. (1996). Downsizing the hospital nursing workforce. Health Affairs, 15, 88–92. Aspy, C. B., Oman, R. F., Vesely, S., McLeroy, K., Harris-Wyatt, V., Rodine, S., et al. (2004). Adolescent violence: The protective effects of youth assets. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 269–277. Atkins, L. A., Oman, R. F., Vesely, S. K., Aspy, C. B., & McLeroy, K. (2002). Adolescent tobacco use: The protective effects of developmental assets. American Journal of Health Promotion, 16, 198–205. Barnes, G. M., & Welte, J. W. (1986). Patterns and predictors of alcohol use among 7–12th grade students in New York State. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 47, 53–62. Benard, B. (1990). Youth service: From youth as problems to youth as resources. Prevention Forum, 6–14. Blum, R. W., Beuhring, T., Shew, M. L., Bearinger, L. H., Sieving, R. E., & Resnick, M. D. (2000). The effects of race/ethnicity, income, and family structure on adolescent risk behaviors. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1879–1884. Bogenschneider, K. (1996). An ecological risk/protective theory for building prevention programs, policies, and community capacity to support youth. Family Relations, 45, 127–138.


763

Brindis, C., Peterson, L. J., Card, J. J., & Eisen, M. (1998). Prevention minimum evaluation data set (PMEDS): A minimum data set for evaluating programs aimed at preventing adolescent pregnancy and STD/AIDS. Los Altos, CA: Sociometrics Corporation. Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (1998). Positive youth development in the United States. Retrieved July 15, 2002, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/ hsp/PositiveYouthDev99/ Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 149–197). New York: Cambridge University Press. Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Newcomb, M. D., & Abbott, R. D. (1996). Modeling the etiology of adolescent substance use: A test of the social development model. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 429–455. Child Trends Inc. (2002). Family structure. Washington, DC: Child Trends Inc. Davis, E. C., & Friel, L. V. (2001). Adolescent sexuality: Disentangling the effects of family structure and family context. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 669–681. DuRant, R. H., Smith, J. A., Kreiter, S. R., & Krowchuk, D. P. (1999). The relationship between early age of onset of initial substance use and engaging in multiple health risk behaviors among young adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 153, 286–291. Ellis, B. J., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., Pettit, G. S., et al. (2003). Does father absence place daughters at special risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy? Child Development, 74, 801–821. Fitzpatrick, K. M. (1997). Fighting among America’s youth: A risk and protective factors approach. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 131–148. Flewelling, R. L., & Bauman, K. E. (1990). Family structure as a predictor of initial substance use and sexual intercourse in early adolescence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 171–181. Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes associated with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34, 416–430. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R., & Hill, K. G. (1999). Preventing adolescent health-risk behaviors by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 153, 226–234. Hoffmann, J. P., & Johnson, R. A. (1999). A national portrait of family structure and adolescent drug use. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 633–645. Jessor, R. J. (1991). Risk behaviors in adolescence: A psychosocial framework for understanding and action. Journal of Adolescent Health, 12, 597–605. Jessor, R. J., Van den Bos, J., Vanderryn, J., Costa, F. M., & Turbin, M. S. (1995). Protective factors in adolescent problem behavior: Moderator effects and developmental change. Developmental Psychology, 31, 923–933. Kann, L., Kinchen, S. A., Williams, B. I., Ross, J. G., Lowry, R., Grunbaum, J. A., et al. (2000). Youth risk behavior surveillance — United States, 1999. MMWR. Surveillance Summaries, 49, 1–94. Kegler, M., Rodine, S., Marshall, L., Oman, R. F., & McLeroy, K. (2003). An asset-based youth development model for preventing teen pregnancy: Illustrations from the HEART of OKC project. Health Education, 103, 131–144. Kirby, D., Short, L., Collins, J., Rugg, D., Kolbe, L., Howard, M., et al. (1994). School-based programs to reduce sexual risk behavior: A review of effectiveness. Public Health Reports, 109, 339–360. MacKay, A., Fingerhut, L., & Duran, C. (2000). Adolescent health chartbook. Health United States, 2000. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. McKnight, J. L. (1997). A 21st century map for healthy communities and families. Families in Society, 117–127.

764

OMAN ET AL.

Metromail Corporation. (1998). Cole digital directory: The cross-reference directory on CDROM. Retrieved August 11, 2004, from http://www.experian.com/marketsharecd/ Miller, T. Q., & Volk, R. J. (2002). Family relationships and adolescent cigarette smoking: Results from a national longitudinal survey. Journal of Drug Issues, 32, 945–972. Murray, D. M., Perry, C. L., O’Connell, C., & Schmid, L. (1987). Seventh-grade cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana use: Distribution in a north central U.S. metropolitan population. International Journal of the Addictions, 22, 357–376. Needleman, J. (2001). The role of nonprofits in health care. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 26, 1113–1130. O’Malley, P. M., Johnston, L. D., & Bachman, J. G. (1998). Alcohol use among adolescents. Alcohol Health and Research World, 22, 85–93. Oman, R. F., McLeroy, K., Vesely, S. K., Aspy, C. B., Smith, D. W., & Penn, D. A. (2002). An adolescent age group approach to examining youth risk behaviors. American Journal of Health Promotion, 16, 167–176. Oman, R. F., Vesely, S. K., & Aspy, C. B. (2005a). Youth assets, aggression and delinquency within the context of family structure. American Journal of Health Behavior, 29, 557–568. Oman, R. F., Vesely, S. K., & Aspy, C. B. (2005b). Youth assets and sexual risk behavior: The importance of assets for youth residing in one-parent households. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37, 25–31. Oman, R. F., Vesely, S. K., Aspy, C., McLeroy, K., & Luby, C. (2004). The association between multiple youth assets and sexual behavior. American Journal of Health Promotion, 19, 12–18. Oman, R. F., Vesely, S. K., Aspy, C. B., McLeroy, K., Rodine, S., & Marshall, L. (2004). The potential protective effect of youth assets on adolescent alcohol and drug use. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 1425–1430. Oman, R. F., Vesely, S. K., McLeroy, K., Harris-Wyatt, V., Aspy, C. B., Rodine, S., et al. (2002). Reliability and validity of the youth asset survey (YAS). Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 247–255. Philliber, S. (1997). Creating and evaluating successful teen pregnancy program. New York: Philliber Research Associates. Philliber, S., & Namerow, P. (1995). Trying to maximize the odds: Using what we know to prevent teen pregnancy. Paper presented at the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, Atlanta, GA. Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., et al. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the national longitudinal study on adolescent health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 823–832. Santelli, J. S., Lowry, R., Brener, N. D., & Robin, L. (2000). The association of sexual behaviors with socioeconomic status, family structure, and race/ethnicity among US adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1582–1588. Scales, P. C. (1990). Developing capable young people: An alternative strategy for prevention programs. Journal of Early Adolescence, 10, 420–438. Thomas, G., Farrell, M. P., & Barnes, G. M. (1996). The effects of single-mother families and nonresident fathers on delinquency and substance abuse in black and white adolescents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 884–894. U. S. Census Bureau. (2003). Living arrangements of children under 18 years old: 1960 to present. Washington, DC: Unites States Department of Commerce, Economics, and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services. (2000). 1998 national household survey on drug abuse. Rockville, MD: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services.


765

Upchurch, D. M., Aneshensel, C. S., Sucoff, C. A., & Levy-Storms, L. (1999). Neighborhood and family contexts of adolescent sexual activity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 920–933. Vanderschmidt, H. F., Lang, J. M., Knight-Williams, V., & Vanderschmidt, G. F. (1993). Risks among inner-city young teens: The prevalence of sexual activity, violence, drugs, and smoking. Journal of Adolescent Health, 14, 282–288. Vesely, S. K., Wyatt, V. H., Oman, R. F., Aspy, C. B., Kegler, M., Rodine, S., et al. (2004). The potential protective effects of youth assets from adolescent sexual risk behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34, 356–365. Waller, M. A., Okamoto, S. K., Miles, B. W., & Hurdle, D. E. (2003). Resiliency factors related to substance use/resistance: Perceptions of native adolescents of the southwest. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 30, 79–94. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A study of resilient children. New York: McGraw-Hill. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Young, E. W., Jensen, L. C., Olsen, J. A., & Cundick, B. P. (1991). The effects of family structure on the sexual behavior of adolescents. Adolescence, 26, 977–986.

Copyright r 2007, Society for Research on Adolescence