Submitted by: Kate Fogarty, Ph.D., Youth Development
PDF Version

Introduction

The role grandparents play in children’s development is an increasingly recognized phenomenon in the U.S., as well as other developed nations. For example, nearly 6% of children reside in homes where grandparents are the head of household (U.S. Census, 2001) and there has been a recent, steep increase in grandparents serving as surrogate parents to their grandchildren (Fuller-Thomson & Minkler, 2000). The increase is attributed to a number of dire conditions affecting parents/children of grandparents such as: (1) death, divorce, child abuse, drug use and incarceration (Edwards & Daire, 2006); and (2) grandparents are the most willing of any family member to take grandchildren into their home (Edwards, 1998).

Beyond the influence, grandparents have on their grandchildren while they raise them – such as academic success and psychological well-being (Edwards, 2003) – grandparents also affect grandchildren even when they do not live under the same roof. When children face high risk situations such as poverty and parental mental illness, grandparents can make a difference by positively affecting a child’s development. Notably, recent findings support how grandparents buffer the negative effects of high risk on children. High risk settings that include: poverty, parental mental illness, and stressful family events are found to be correlates and causes of maternal depression (Silverstein & Ruiz, 2006). Maternal depression has notable negative effects on parenting and children’s functioning, effects which have been found to be lessened by grandchildren’s sense of emotional closeness to their grandparents.

Maternal Depression and Family Relationships

Maternal depression affects children through family relationships by how parents and children interact with one another (Davies & Windle, 1997; Nelson, Hammen, Brennan, & Ullman, 2003). Compared to nondepressed mothers, depressed mothers are found to respond:

• minimally or inconsistently with their children;
• express more negative emotions with their children; and
• are less engaged when interacting with their children (Petterson & Albers, 2001). Like poverty, maternal depression:
• inhibits children’s cognitive development (Petterson & Albers, 2001);
• worsens their behavior problems (Elgar, Curtis, McGrath, Waschbusch, & Stewart, 2003; Zuckerman & Beardslee, 1987);
• influences teens’ acting out behaviors and impairs their functioning in social and academic roles (Nelson, et al., 2003).

Depressive symptoms reported by mothers are associated with adolescent daughters’ (but not sons’) experiences with depression, behavioral problems, and academic difficulties (Davies & Windle, 1997). Mothers’ reports of depression when children are school-aged and adolescents had negative effects on psychological functioning and educational attainment for adult sons and daughters (Ensminger, Hanson, Riley, & Juon, 2003). Moreover, mother’s depression when children were school-aged to young adult was significantly related to children’s reports of depression in young adulthood (Silverstein & Ruiz, 2006). Similar to the timing effects found with poverty, the longer a period of time a child experiences maternal depression, the more negative developmental effects result (Petterson & Albers, 2001).

Maternal depression has clearly been established as a risk factor for poor child, adolescent, and young adult (e.g., developmental) outcomes. For example, a national, representative longitudinal study has found that being (Silverstein & Ruiz, 2006):

• female;
• unmarried vs. married and cohabiting;
• cohabiting vs. married;
• depressed in childhood; and
• having a depressed mother as a child, each increased the likelihood that children would be depressed as young adults.

Grandparent(s) as Protective Factor

However, this same study shows that a child’s relationship with his or her grandparent(s) is a source of protection or a protective factor. For example, a grandchild’s:

• sense of emotional closeness to their grandparent(s);
• frequency of contact with grandparent(s); and
• view of their grandparent(s) as a source of social support, together buffer the “intergenerational effect” of maternal depression on children (Silverstein & Ruiz, 2006).

In other words, for children with depressed mothers, the higher a child’s sense of “social cohesion” with their grandparent(s), measured by the above three factors, the less likely he or she is to experience depression in adulthood. Or, among all children, the link between depressive symptoms of mothers and children was found to be weakened by the presence of strong grandparent-grandchild relationships.

Notable protective factors pinpointed in resilience research include: availability of community support networks, the presence of caring adults, possession of high intelligence, and having high self-esteem; these protective factors have caught the attention of youth interventionists and prevention researchers. Decreasing the influence of risk factors and increasing or providing the presence of protection in the lives of at-risk youth is a main goal of intervention. There is logic in targeting those protective factors found in youth development research as part of treatment and prevention for youth at risk (Wolkow & Ferguson, 2001); however, setbacks occur due to limited knowledge of how to influence underlying processes that buffer risk and stress in the lives of youth (Rutter, 1993).

In light of these recent findings of the protective function of grandparents on youth outcomes, Extension educators can (adapted from Silverstein & Ruiz, 2006):

• Consider ways to mobilize family resources toward the extended, and beyond the nuclear, family;
• Emphasize the importance of intergenerational relationships in families;
• Incorporate ways for intergenerational family participation in programs;
• Encourage the volunteerism of older adults in the community (e.g., as “surrogate” grandparents to individual youth or youth programs); and
• Make use of multigenerational resources in their programs.

References

Davies, P.T., & Windle, M. (1997). Gender-specific pathways between maternal depressive symptoms, family discord, and adolescent adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 33, 657-668.

Edwards, O.W. & Daire, A.P. (2006). School-age children raised by their grandparents: Problems and solutions. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33, 113-119.

Edwards, O.W. (1998). Helping grandchildren raised by grandparents: Expanding psychology in the schools. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 173-181.

Edwards, O.W. (2003). Living with grandma: A grandfamily study. School Psychology International, 24, 204-217.

Elgar, F.J., Curtis, L.J., McGrath, P.J., Waschbusch, D.A., & Stewart, S.H. (2003). Antecedent-consequence conditions in maternal mood and child adjustment: A four-year cross-lagged study. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 362-374.

Ensminger, M.E., Hanson, S.G., Riley, A. W., & Juon, H.S. (2003). Maternal psychological distress: Adult sons’ and daughters’ mental health and educational attainment. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 1108-1115.

Fuller-Thomson, E., & Minkler, M. (2000). America’s grandparent caregivers: Who are they? In B. Hayslip Jr. & R. Goldberg-Glen (Eds.), Grandparents raising grandchildren: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical perspectives (pp. 3-21). New York, NY: Springer.

Nelson, D.R., Hammen, C., Brennan, P.A., & Ullman, J.B. (2003). The impact of maternal depression on adolescent adjustment: The role of expressed emotion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 935-944.

Petterson, S.M. & Albers, A.B. (2001). Effects of poverty and maternal depression on early child development. Child Development, 72, 1974-1813.

Rutter, M. (1993). Resilience: Some conceptual considerations. Journal of Adolescent Health, 14, 626-631.

Silverstein, M., & Ruiz, S. (2006). Breaking the chain: How grandparents moderate the transmission of maternal depression to their grandchildren. Family Relations, 55, 601-612.

United States Census Bureau. (2001). Census 2000 Supplementary Survey: Profile of selected social characteristics.

Wolkow, K.E., & Ferguson, H.B. (2001). Community factors in the development of resiliency: Considerations and future directions. Community Mental Health Journal, 37, 489-498.

Zuckerman, B.S., & Beardslee, W.R. (1987). Maternal depression: A concern for pediatricians. Pediatrics, 79, 110-117.

School and Youth Violence: Profiles, Problems, and Solutions

Submitted by: Kate Fogarty, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Youth Development

School violence and crime, particularly serious violent offenses, are well-publicized in the media, leading the American public to believe they are occurring at alarming rates. Before parents hastily decide to home school their youth based on what they see in the media, it is important to examine the research. This article discusses findings from representative studies of the actual prevalence of violence and crime in the schools.

In the past decade the rates of serious violent victimization (rape, robbery, sexual and/or aggravated assault) of 12-18 year-old youth in schools have been consistently less than rates of such crimes against youth in non-school settings. For example, among the 26.4 million 12-18 year-old students enrolled in schools, there were 150,000 incidents of serious violent offenses whereas 320,000 such incidents occurred outside school settings (National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003).

Moreover, rates of victimization of 12-18 year-old students have been steadily on the decline in the past decade. Between 1995 and 2003 the percentage of 12-18 year-old students who reported being victims of crime in school declined from 10% to 5%. Alternatively, less serious and violent crimes, such as theft, are more likely to occur in schools than outside of schools. Twelve to eighteen year-old students were victims of 1.2 million thefts on school grounds as opposed to 750,000 incidents of theft outside the school setting. About 5% of 12 to 18-year-old students reported being victimized at school in which 4% reported theft and the remaining 1% reported being a victim of serious violent crime.

In-School and Out of School Violence: Profiles of Victims

The National Crime Victimization Survey (2003) reported the following profiles of youth victims of in-school and out-of-school violence:

• Males were more likely than females to be victims of crime and serious violent offenses, ones that took place both in and outside school settings.
• Youth aged 12-14 were more likely to be victims of crime and serious violence in school than 15-18 year-old students.
• Older students, aged 15-18 years, were more likely than their younger peers to be victims of crime and serious violence that took place outside of school.
• No differences were found in rates of theft in school by age or sex.
• White and Black students were more likely to have experienced theft than Hispanic students.
• No differences were found in rates of serious violent crime (whether in or out of school) by age, race/ethnicity, or sex.

Violent Behavior in Schools: Use of Weapons

The Youth Risk Behavior Survey (2003) reported the following findings on types of school-related violence:

• Male 9^th – 12^th graders were more likely than females (12% versus 6%) to have been threatened or injured with a weapon on school property.
• Urban students were more likely than suburban students to report having been threatened or injured with a weapon on school property. The difference (11% versus 9%) was not statistically significant. In other words, there was not enough evidence to prove the difference was found by more than chance.
• Native American students were more likely to have been threatened or injured with a weapon on school property than all other racial/ethnic groups.
• Ninth graders were more likely to have been threatened or injured by a weapon on school property than tenth graders (12% versus 9%).

Violent Incidents Reported at School

The School Survey on Crime and Safety polled public school principals to report rates of serious violent crimes (rape, sexual battery, physical attack, fight with a weapon, threatening with a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon). The survey found:

• 71% of public schools experienced at least one violent incident in the 1999-2000 school year and 36% of public schools reported such incidents to the police.
• Urban schools were more likely than suburban schools to report violent incidents to the police. Seventy-seven percent of city schools had at least one violent incident and 44% reported at least one violent incident to the police.
• 86% of public schools experienced one or more incident of crime (including nonviolent) in the 1999-2000 school year.
• 92% of high schools or junior high schools, 87% of middle schools, and 61% of elementary schools had experienced at least one violent incident.

The effects of school violence on children and teachers include:

• depression and adjustment problems
• poor academic performance
• truancy and school dropout
• (for teachers) disillusionment with and/or leaving the profession.

In light of the damage that school violence does to students, teachers, and school systems, prevention is crucial. These findings point to ways in which intervention has worked over the past decade as well as future directions to go in order to prevent school violence. Suggestions for reducing youth violence, both in and out of school, include:

Commit to raising children safely and effectively.

Programs that serve parents, children, and child care providers need to be designed to promote positive discipline, effective communication, and investment of quality time between parents and their children.

Make prevention and intervention a reality.

Implement programs serving family and school audiences and evaluate their effectiveness.

Support our schools.

Extension programs such as those provided by 4-H and Family and Consumer Sciences have effectively worked with school audiences (teachers, students, and administrators) in educational efforts promoting life skills that youth need to succeed.

Create collaborations among families, schools, and other institutions in the community.

Cooperative Extension, through Family and Consumer Science and 4-H educational programs effectively create such collaborations to provide youth with socialization opportunities to develop in positive ways.

References

DeVoe, J.F., Peter, K., Noonan, M., Snyder, T.D., and Baum, K. (2005). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005 (NCES 2006–001/NCJ 210697). U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Santrock, J.W. (2007). Adolescence. (11^th Edition). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Submitted by: Kate Fogarty, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, 4-H Youth Development

Introduction

Today’s teens face strong pressures to date as well as get involved in a serious relationship (Teenage Research Unlimited, 2006). Although most romantic relationships last less than 5 months among 12 to 14 year-olds, by age 16 relationships last an average of 2 years (Berk, 2005). In the early teen years dating is more superficial – for fun, status among peers, and exploring sexuality. In the older teen years youth are looking for intimacy, companionship, affection, and social support.

What Parents and Adults Need to Know About Teen Dating

Even when teens start dating, they are still not as close with romantic partners as they are with their same-sex friends. Also, the relationships teens have with their parents – especially the degree of support and security they feel in their relationships – influences their having warm and secure feelings about friendship. Having a secure view of friendship is positively related to teens’ security in their romantic relationships (Berk, 2005). In other words, parents influence the quality of teens’ friendships and dating relationships.

As long as dating doesn’t start too early in the adolescent years, dating is a way to learn (Berk, 2005):

• cooperation skills
• socially appropriate behavior
• interdependence
• compromise
• empathy
• intimacy
• sensitivity.

Although most adolescent romantic relationships do not last long (most teens are still forming their identities), first romances are practice for more mature bonds in adulthood. In fact, warm and caring romantic relationships in the teen years tend to lead to satisfying, committed relationships in early adulthood (Berk, 2005).

The dark side of dating in the teen years is that it can put youth at risk. Frequent dating in early adolescence is linked with adolescent risk behaviors such as school failure, drug use, and delinquency. Also, a teen’s chance of involvement in dating violence increases if he or she has experienced abusive family relationships as well as frequent, early dating and/or sexual involvement. A portion of teens face the dangers of dating violence. For example, in a representative poll of over 1,000 teens (13-18 years-old) (Teenage Research Unlimited, 2006):

• About half (49%) of 16- to 18- year-olds have been “seriously involved” in a relationship.
• 24% felt pressure to date and 14% said they would do almost anything to keep a boyfriend or girlfriend.
• 61% of teens who had been in a relationship stated they had a boyfriend/girlfriend who made them “feel bad or embarrassed” about themselves.
• 15% have been “hit, slapped, or pushed” by a boyfriend or girlfriend and 25% of those in a “serious” relationship were “hit, slapped, or pushed.”
• One-third (33%) of 16-18 year-olds said sex is “expected” of people their age who are in a relationship – about the same portion (31%) of teens who have been in a “serious” relationship agreed with this statement.

The expectation for sex in teen relationships may be partly explained by the media which socializes teens on dating and sexual behaviors (Ward & Friedman, 2006).

Ways to Discuss Dating with Teens

Parents and youth educators can use their knowledge of both the promises and pitfalls of dating in the teen years to discuss dating openly with youth. Suggestions for how to communicate with teens about dating follow.

• First and foremost, make sure you are building a loving, supportive relationship with your teen. (See “5 Ways to Show Love to Your Teen.” ) Your relationship with your teen serves as a model for the relationships she or he will have with friends and future romantic partners.
• When your teen feels loved and supported, this will open the lines of communication and trust.
• Take time to find out about your teen’s friends and schedule of daily events through conversation. This is a great way to learn about his or her peer network and what is important to your teen.
• Ask tentative, open-ended questions of your teen about potential romantic interests. Avoid, forcing the issue, though. Don’t embarrass him or her with information your teen shares in confidence.
• Be open to discussing your own relationship experiences with your teen. Share how you define a healthy versus an unhealthy relationship. If you are currently in a significant relationship, serve as a role model for healthy relationship behavior to your teen.
• Share with your teen the positives of dating later in adolescence. Let him/her know your views/values on dating with an optimistic attitude, using positive examples as needed. Avoid dwelling on the “don’ts” of dating.
• Be willing to do the work to support your teen in his or her dating relationship, unless it is one that appears to cause him or her psychological or physical harm.
• Understand that your teen’s identity as well as sexuality are still being formed and may be fragile. Avoid letting your values dictate your teen’s sexual identity. Sexual minority (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered) youth usually face much confusion and difficulty in this time and need their parents’ support.
• Inform your teen about the rules (and consequences) you’ve set on dating and why – the appropriate age, age of partner, curfews, who they’ll be with, and contact information. Make sure to follow through with expectations and consequences.
• Ask your teen to think carefully about dating: whether he or she feels pressured to date; whether he/she knows of a teen couple who are having problems and why that may be the case; or what he/she thinks dating should be like. If possible, share what you know about the research, in a caring and casual way.
• Join your teen in watching his or her favorite television programs, particularly those that involve teens having romantic relationships. Refrain from commenting during the show and take time for discussion after the show is over. (For example ask your teen, “How might that situation really end up?, “What is healthy/unhealthy about this relationship?”, or “What overall message do you get from this episode about teen relationships?”).

Overall, it’s important to: (1) Provide a safe and secure base for your teen to communicate with you openly about his or her relationships; (2) Guide your teen with open-ended questions to think about his/her own expectations and values in relationships; and (3) Share your own wisdom about relationships with your teen.

Implications for Extension Programs

Dating in the teenage years is one of many ways to promote healthy development among teens. Programs serving youth and their families can promote a positive emphasis – or resilience perspective – on teen dating. However, the problems of dating in adolescence should not be overlooked in curricula/programming that serves teens. And, there are other ways to promote positive youth development, especially in the younger teen years.

Programs for parents of teens benefit from including teens in the program – in other words, promoting healthy parent-teen interaction. For example, a revised Florida-based curriculum, “Teening-Up with your Adolescent”: Parenting Children Ages 9-16, is useful for both parent-only and parent-teen audiences.

Parent-teen programs ideally should focus on building parent-teen bonds, fostering communication, and bolstering parental monitoring and support of teens. Developing these parent-teen relationship assets help teens to build healthy relationships outside the family unit (Search Institute, 2006).

The relationship between parents or a parent and a romantic partner also sets an example for teens. Family programming should focus on strengthening relationships between parents and between parents and teens. Moreover, parents can be encouraged and motivated to set an example of healthy adult relationships with their teens.

Conclusion

Dating in adolescence poses both promises and problems. Understanding the pros and cons of dating can help parents in their communication with teens. Strengthening family communication is an important goal of curricula and programming that serves youth and families in Extension.

Additional References

Berk, L. E. (2005). Infants, children, and adolescents (5th Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Search Institute (2006). 40 Developmental Assets^TM For Teens Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute^SM http://www.search-institute.org/assets/40Assets.pdf. Accessed on March 24, 2006.

Teenage Research Unlimited (2006). Teen Relationship Abuse Survey. Northbrook, IL: Liz Claiborne Inc.

Ward, M.L., & Friedman, K. (2006). Using TV as a Guide: Associations Between Television Viewing and Adolescents’ Sexual Attitudes and Behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 133-156.

Extension, teens, dating, teenagers, parents, parenting

Submitted by: Kate Fogarty, Ph.D. Assistant Professor 4-H Youth Development, Joy Jordan, Ph.D., Associate Professor, 4-H Youth Development, & Marilyn Lesmeister, Ph.D., Assistant Professor 4-H Volunteer Development

Written by: Abbe DeGroat, M.S., 4-H Educational Instructor, Pinellas County, Kate Fogarty, Ph.D., Assistant Professor 4-H Youth Development, Joy Jordan, Ph.D. Associate Professor 4-H Youth Development & Marilyn Lesmeister Ph.D., Assistant Professor 4-H Volunteer Development

Introduction

Learning environments that promote positive youth development have notable features. Recent studies have shown that youth spending time in engaging, safe, structured, supervised, and healthy activities, are less likely to become involved in health risk behaviors, as well as attain a variety of competencies and life skills outcomes (Dierking & Faulk, 2003; Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Roth et al.,1998). Ideal settings for youth are those that provide (Eccles & Gootman, 2002):

• supportive relationships;
• positive expectations of behavior;
• opportunities for empowerment;
• connections between youth environments (e.g., family, school, & community)
• life skills development.

The purpose of the following report-as part of a statewide evaluation of 4-H clubs across Florida conducted in the summer of 2005* – is to examine the roles of 4-H organizational support, learning opportunities, and supportive, safe learning environments as they contribute to youth life skill development in community clubs. Most important, the role of volunteers in providing support (attitudes, caring), and creating the settings which motivate life skill development among youth, will be described.

Methodology

The 4-H club evaluation survey* was completed by 628 youth from about 30 Florida counties in the summer through fall of 2005. Evaluation reports were produced for individual counties in addition to a statewide report. The evaluation research process began with a factor analysis (principal components with varimax rotation); items fell into a number of expected factors including: (1) volunteer support systems; (2) 4-H organizational support; (3) learning opportunities; and (4) safe, supportive club environments. The goal of this research was to illustrate, through regression analysis, how the above factors fall into a conceptual model. Namely, it was expected that contextual influences (organizational support, learning opportunities, and supportive club environments) influence youth life skills by way of volunteer support systems. In other words, volunteers are believed to mediate or bridge the relation between environmental forces and life skill outcomes.

Outcome: Life Skills and Youth Development

Life skills gained by youth demonstrate positive youth development and are the outcome measure of interest. Youth reported on the degree to which they possessed the following life skills: decision-making (self-responsibility, personal accountability for actions, selecting positive peers, and avoiding risky behaviors), developing marketable skills (career choices, planning) leading and serving others (community service, leadership skills) and relationship and communication (communication skills, conflict management skills). (Cronbach’s alpha = .94)

Volunteer Support Systems: The Bridge Between Club Environments and Life Skills for Youth

The ability of Programs to provide safe and secure environments for youth depends upon the management and quality of trained staff and volunteers. Volunteers not only help maintain safe, secure environments for youth but also provide caring and support as well as ample learning opportunities. Youth overall rated 4-H club volunteers as effective at individual mentoring and support. Items indicating mentoring and support of youth needs included: “listens to me and my club members”; “talks with me or other members when we have a problem”; “lets me know that he/she has high expectations of me”; and “encourages me to take leadership roles and helps me succeed.” A significant correlation was found between volunteer support and youth life skills (r=.676, p<.000). This finding leads us to the next question, “How do the organizational supports, learning opportunities, and supportive environments provided by 4-H contribute to youth life skill development?” (Cronbach’s alpha = .96)

Contextual Influences: Organizational Supports, Learning Opportunities and Supportive Environments

A question the evaluation survey aimed to answer is how effective 4-H has been at supporting youth in their counties. Items that measured this effectiveness factored into two areas: (1) 4-H organizational supports; and (2) learning opportunities. Items measuring 4-H organizational support include: “4-H is my primary activity outside school”; “In 4-H I feel useful and important“; and “My 4-H Club involves youth from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds” (Cronbach’s alpha = .86). Items measuring learning opportunities in 4-H club environments include: “4-H offers projects to meet my interests”; “Project materials I receive help me gain new knowledge and skills”; and “4-H provides me training events to support my project work” (Cronbach’s alpha = .81)

Beyond organizational supports and learning opportunities, there must be safe supportive environments created by volunteers working with youth in community clubs. Items measuring safe supportive environments in clubs include: “4-H clubs are supportive environments where I feel accepted”; “My 4-H club provides a safe place for learning and growing”; and “In my 4-H club, I can explore my own interests” (Cronbach’s alpha = .82)

Relations among contextual influences, volunteer support systems and life skills

Organizational supports, learning opportunities in the environment, and supportive environments (contextual influences) each correlated significantly with both youth life skills and volunteer support systems. This leads to the questions: (1) what might a model containing life skills, volunteer support systems, organizational supports, and environmental opportunities look like? and (2) how does such a model explain how volunteers and environmental supports work to influence youth development?

Following a factor analysis, the researchers attempted to create a concept map among influences, treating life skills as a positive youth development outcome. A number of combinations of variables were tested using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) method for testing mediation with multiple regression. Consistent support was found for volunteer support systems (adult volunteers’ attitude and the way they interacted with youth) as a partial mediator of the relation between environmental influences and youth life skill outcomes.

Simply stated, a mediator is an influence that comes between two variables and helps explain how the two variables relate. For example, the relation between poverty and youth school performance can be better explained by the mediator, “parents’ involvement in schooling.” One cannot assume because a youth is poor, that he or she will automatically do poorly in school. Also, when a mediator (usually a person-based factor) explains the relation between an environmental or contextual factor and a youth development outcome, it helps us know where to intervene (Hansen, 1996)- for example, creating a program that encourages low-income parents to increase their involvement in a child’s schooling.

The figure that follows statistically illustrates the relations among the five variables.

Main Ideas

Although at first glance, the model appears complex, it can be easily summarized.

• About 70% of the life skills outcome (variance in youth life skills) is explained by the three contextual/environmental influences.
• Almost 50% of life skills are explained by volunteer support.
• Supportive safe environments, learning opportunities and 4-H organizational support all influence youth life skills.

Without the presence of volunteers, the environmental influences (safe environments, learning opportunities, and 4-H organizational support) lose impact. In other words, when volunteers are taken out of the equation (for example, the supportive safe environment à life skills path coefficient reduces from .262 to .200), the impact of environmental influences on youth outcomes lessens.

• It’s all about volunteer support. Volunteer support systems mediate or serve as a bridge between environmental influences and youth life skill outcomes. This is because volunteer support is related to each of the environmental influences and related to life skill outcomes.
• Volunteers support the development of key youth life skills such as: communication skills (conflict resolution, self-confidence, public presentation), relationship skills (making and keeping friends, relationship building skills), decision-making skills (planning, organizing time and resources, setting goals, self-responsibility), and leading and serving others (community service, planning club activities in community, learning leadership).
• Because volunteers are the key, the 4-H organization as a whole can have the most impact on youth through volunteer development provided by agents and specialists.

Implications for Extension Programs/Conclusion

Ultimately, volunteers provide support to youth and help create environments of safety, challenging learning, and convey the message of 4-H organizational support and systems to youth.

The research findings reveal no surprises. The best way to positively influence youth life skill development – as well as the community club environment and organizational support – is through supporting and training adult volunteers who work with youth. The research shows that the volunteers who worked with the surveyed 4-H youth were strong in their knowledge of 4-H as an organization, offered challenging learning opportunities for youth, created safe healthy environments for youth in clubs, and supported them through caring, encouraging relationships. The research here simply sums up a well-known truth in 4-H that “volunteers hold the key” to youth development. Also, youth development is represented by the life skills that youth possess – life skills that volunteers and 4-H organizational structures and delivery systems help to develop.

The 2005 statewide club evaluation survey provides supporting data from youth on three focus areas of 4-H program effectiveness – namely:

• Creating high quality community-based learning environments for youth in clubs
• Creating caring adults support systems for youth
• Developing life and career skills through subject-matter topics.

Moreover, the data provided a useful means of conceptually organizing the influence of each of these three areas (and components of these areas) on one another. Keeping the above model in mind, the support and training of adult volunteers should include – and appears to be currently strong in these areas:

• sharing information on 4-H opportunities and supports to both adult volunteers and youth at the county, district, state, and national levels
• opportunities for professional growth in the areas of facilitating youth life skills as well as developing youth and adult subject matter skills
• moral support of volunteers at the county (extension agent, program assistant) and state organizational levels
• support for youth-adult partnerships in the club environment (as well as alternate delivery systems), encouraging growth on both sides
• education on creating/fostering developmentally appropriate (ages and stages), safe, structured environments for youth

Additional References

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Dierking, L.D., & Faulk, J.H. (2003). “Optimizing out-of-school time: The role of free-choice learning.” New Directions for Youth Development, 97, 75-88.

Eccles, J., & Gootman, J.A. (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Hansen, W.B. (1996). “Pilot test results comparing the All Stars Program with seventh grade D.A.R.E.: Program integrity and mediating variable analysis.” Substance Use & Misuse, 31, 1359-1377.

Roth, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Murray, L. & Foster, W. (1998). Promoting healthy adolescents: Synthesis of youth development program evaluations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 423-459.

*More information on the overall evaluation of youth is available in the 2006 Florida 4-H evaluation publication by Joy Jordan and Abbe DeGroat entitled, “Florida 4-H Develops Positive and Productive Youth”.

• PDF Version
• Word Version

Extension, 4-H, youth, adolescents, teens, clubs, life skills

Submitted by: Kate Fogarty, Ph.D., Youth Development

Where do teens get their information about sex?

In a small but crowded room of 4-H seniors (aged 14-18) from across Florida, an uncomfortable question was asked: “How many of you discuss sex ‘openly’ with your parents?” Two of thirty youth in the room raised their hands; one was male and the other female. Once the workshop was over, these two who were among the last to leave, expressed surprise about standing out from the rest of the group.

Granted the 6.7% statistic that I witnessed that day does not come from a “representative sample.” Adolescents’ concerns with how they look in front of their peers and the many meanings teens have for ‘open’ communication about sex with parents (Kirkman, Rosenthal, & Feldman, 2005), contributed to the low show of hands. In actuality, half (50%) of American teens have conversations with their parents about contraception, sexual behavior, and negative effects of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases/infections (Jaccard, Dodge, & Dittus, 2002).

The other half gives us cause for concern. If they are not talking with their parents, then where do these teens get their information about sex? Sex education should not be a burden placed solely on schools, other community resources, and the media (Ward & Friedman, 2006). In school, for example, middle schoolers (6th to 8th graders) still wanted to learn more factual information – as well as practical advice on how to apply the information they’ve learned – in their sex education classes (Byers, Sears, Voyer, Thurlow, Cohen, & Weaver, 2003). In addition, the majority of parents (95% in a study of 4,000 parents of school-aged youth) agree that sex education is a joint responsibility of school and the home (Weaver, Byers, Sears, Cohen, & Randall, 2002). Last, there are numerous advantages to parents and teens discussing sex in the home and family setting, including (Berk, 2006):

• Parents can communicate their own values on sexuality.
• Parents’ better understand their teens’ background and life circumstances.
• Parents can tailor the information shared based on their understanding of their teenager’s personality, knowledge level, and developmental level.

Barriers to Parent/Adult-Teen Communication About Sex

Possible reasons that teens and parents don’t discuss sex include embarrassment (Rosenthal & Feldman, 2002), or parents’ assuming teens know more than they do (the teens themselves and/or parents!) (Jaccard, Dittus, & Gordon, 2000). Although teens tend to feel confident in what they know about sex, when tested, their actual knowledge falls short (Radecki & Jaccard, 1995). Adolescents seek to be treated as adults but may feel ‘talked down to’ when talking with parents or other adults about sex. Teens’ complaints about discussing sex with parents or adults include viewing them as close-minded, uncompassionate, or lacking understanding of the complexities in their adolescent lives (Berk, 2006).

Mothers are the primary initiators of discussions on sex with their teens. Mothers tended to be in charge of these conversations – especially when they are communicating with their sons. The most interactive conversations, however, take place between mothers and daughters (Raffaeli, Bogenschneider, & Flood, 1998). An adolescent is likely to ‘disconnect’ from a discussion when a parent or adult dominates the conversation. Teens who feel overpowered tend to withdraw from discussions with their parents about sex, which, in turn, limits the amount of parent-teen conversations about sex and teens’ knowledge of sexual health issues (Lefkowitz, Sigman, & Au, 2000).

The Solution

Based on the shortcomings of teens’ sexual health education by adults, it is important to encourage positive communication between teens and adults in this area. Effective sexual health parent education programs promote the following communication styles between parents and teens (Lefkowitz et al., 2000):

• Having two-way conversations.
• Use of open-ended questions.
• Thorough discussions of dating and sexuality.
• Empathy and reduced judgment.

In return, teens of parents trained in communication skills about sexual health are likely to feel (Lefkowitz et al., 2000):

• More comfortable discussing sensitive sexual matters.
• More likely to seek out birth control.

In addition, parent-school partnerships in sexual health education (for example assigning ‘homework’ activities for youth to discuss sexuality issues with parents) are an effective means of preventing sexual risk behaviors and opening the lines of communication (Blake, Simkin, Ledsky, Perkins & Calabrese, 2001).

School-based sex education involving communication exercises with parents contributed to the following:

• Reducing early teens’ intentions to have sex before completing high school.
• Increasing teens’ self-efficacy in refusing high-risk sexual behaviors.
• Decreasing discomfort in parent-child communication about sex.

Advice for Parents and Sexual Health Educators

Ultimately, educating teens about sexuality needs to be a balance between what teens want to learn about and what we as adults feel they need to know to develop into healthy adults.

Ways in which adults and parents can effectively communicate with adolescents about sex include (Berk, 2006; Ponton, 2000):

• Encouraging open communication (e.g., speaking directly to teen).
• Using accurate yet simple names for body parts, sexual behaviors, and feelings.
• Keeping in mind that sexuality is a complex topic and teens are struggling to understand their sexual identities.
• Effective use of conversational skills (Open-ended questions, being nonjudgmental, respectfully disagreeing, use of suggestion rather than directives).
• Reflective listening and speaking (use of I messages, active listening, turn taking).
• Keeping the dialogue open and ongoing – not restricted to a single “sex talk.”
• Gently communicating morals and values and using examples.
• Encouraging teens to talk with adults they trust about sexuality.
• Watching for danger signs such as sexual and other risk behaviors (unprotected sex, potentially harmful sexual relationships, depression, anxiety, self-mutilation behaviors)
• Keeping in mind that sexuality is a confusing topic and teens are struggling to understand their sexual identities. Therefore, try to avoid stereotyping by gender, (For example; using double standards such as having stricter rules for females than males because ‘girls can get pregnant’) or by sexual orientation, which can be potentially damaging to teens’ developing identities.

In conclusion, it is important to keep in mind the long-term goal or impact of effective communication about sexuality with today’s youth: ensuring positive youth development by promoting their physical, social, and emotional health.

References:

Berk, L.E. (2006). Child Development (2nd Edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Blake, S.M., Simkin, L., Ledsky, R., Perkins, C., & Calabrese, J.M. (2001). Effects of a parent-child communications intervention on young adolescents’ risk for early onset of sexual intercourse. Family Planning Perspectives, 33, 52-61.x

Byers, E.S., Sears, H.A., Voyer, S.D., Thurlow, J.L., Cohen, J.N., & Weaver, A.D. (2003). An adolescent perspective on sexual health education at school and at home: II. Middle school students. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 12, 19-34.

Jaccard, J., Dodge, T., & Dittus, P. (2002). Parent-adolescent communication about sex and birth control: A conceptual framework. In S.S. Feldman & D.A. Rosenthal (Eds.), Talking Sexuality: Parent-adolescent communication (pp. 9-41). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jaccard, J., Dittus, P., & Gordon, V.V. (2000). Parent-adolescent congruency in reports of adolescent sexual behavior and in communications about sexual behavior. Child Development, 69, 247-261.

Kirkman, M., Rosenthal, D., & Feldman, S.S. (2005). Being open with your mouth shut: The meaning of ‘openness’ in family communication about sexuality. Sex Education, 5, 49-66.

Lefkowitz, E.S., Sigman, M., & Au, T.K. (2000). Helping mothers discuss sexuality and AIDS with adolescents. Child Development, 71, 1383-1394.

Ponton, L.E. (2000). Teenagers and sexuality at camp: Understanding teen sexuality and tips for talking with them. Camping Magazine, September/October, 20-24.

Radecki, C.M., & Jaccard, J. (1995). Perceptions of knowledge, actual knowledge, and information search behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 107-138.

Raffaeli, M., Bogenschneider, K., & Flood, M.F. (1998). Parent-teen communication about sexual topics. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 315-333.

Ward, L.M., & Friedman, K. (2006). Using TV as a guide: Associations between television viewing and adolescents’ sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 105-131.

Weaver, A.D., Byers, E.S., Sears, H.A., Cohen, J.N., & Randall, H.E.S. (2002). Sexual health education at school and at home: Attitudes and experiences of New Brunswick parents. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 11, 19-30.

sex, teens, adolescent, parenting, sex education

Submitted by: Kate Fogarty, Assistant Professor, Youth Development Specialist, Florida 4-H

Cooperative Extension faculty, as part of the land grant university system, provides educational services in areas such as agriculture, communities, family and consumer sciences, and youth development to every county in the United States. Extension faculty are expected to fill multiple roles in their careers and family life – roles that demand lots of time and energy.

None of this is news to any of us! As much as the topic of balancing work and family life comes up in general conversation, there are few available research studies on the work and family life of Extension agents (Martin & Morris, 2005). However, a recent study on the work and family life of county Extension agents provides some interesting insights.

Participants

In this study, 298 county Extension agents from a Southeastern state (not Florida!) completed a mail out questionnaire (55% response rate). Of the 298 participants:

30.4% were Agricultural Extension faculty
11.5% were in Family and Consumer Sciences
23% were in 4-H Youth Development
12.1% combined Agriculture/4-H Youth Development
11.1% combined 4-H Youth Development/Family and Consumer Sciences
2% in Expanded Food-Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP)
9.8% in an “other” category consisting of administrators and specialists.

About twenty-two percent (21.8%) were Extension Agent I (had generally worked less than 8 years in Extension), thirteen percent (12.8%) Extension Agent II (8-15 years in Extension), 33.2% Extension Agent III or IV (15 or more years in Extension), 18.5% State Specialists, 9.1% County/District Specialists, and 2.7% District/State Administrators. Participants reported working an average of 49 hours a week, had been in their present position on average nearly 10 years (9.53 years), had spent a mean of 15 years in the Cooperative Extension Service, and were an average age of 43 years-old.

Fifty-six percent of the sample was male (44% female), and 93% of the sample was white American, with 6% African-American and .3% Hispanic American, and .3% “other”. Although some measures pertained to marriage and family life, all Extension faculty were included in the study regardless of whether they were (married, single, divorced, widowed, or “other”).

Mentionable Measures

Measures of the following variables were included in the survey. Only three measures will be mentioned here – namely, those, which distinguished male from female agents and on which Extension faculty, differed according to their specialty area.

Relational Equity

The Relational Equity Index (REI) is a measure of the discrepancy between a spouse’s expectations or ideals for marriage and his or her actual experiences or reality (see Sabatelli, et al., 1985). The degree of fairness a person perceives in a relationship, defined by how much a spouse perceives both parties as contributing to a relationship or whether there is an unfair balance is the main emphasis of the REI. The REI contains 10 items measured on a 5 point, Likert-type scale. Reported internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for the REI in this reviewed study was .95.

Marital Conflict

The Kansas Marital Conflict Scale (KMCS) (see Eggeman, Moxley, & Schumm, 1985) is composed of 27 items broken down into three subscales: Agenda Building; Arguing; and Negotiation. The KMCS is also on a 5-point Likert-type format and Cronbach’s alpha on the three subscales was found to be: Agenda Building (.90); Arguing (.92); and Negotiation (.92) in this reviewed study.

Effect of Job on Family Life Satisfaction

The Effect of Job on Family Life Scale (EJFLS) has 24 items and is in a 6-point Likert-type format ranging from “It affects my life very negatively” to “It affects my family life very positively” (see St. Pierre, 1984 and Lepley, 2003). Internal consistency reliability or Cronbach’s alpha was .90 in the study reviewed.

Work Satisfaction

Job satisfaction and degree to which the job environment is pleasant was measured by the Work Satisfaction Scale (WSS) (See Blanding, 1995). The WSS is on a 4-point Likert-type format from “not satisfied at all” to “very satisfied” and has 3 items. Cronbach’s alpha in this study was calculated at .71 in the study.

Research Question / Hypotheses

The goal of the study was to examine the relationship between work and family life among Extension faculty, particularly with respect to gender, job responsibility area (such as FCS/4-H), and job title.

Hypotheses regard whether:
1) Male and female agents differ with respect to…
2) Job responsibility or specialty area affects an Extension faculty member’s…
3) Whether job title affects an Extension faculty member’s… work satisfaction, parent-child relationship quality, life satisfaction, marital satisfaction, marital conflict, relational equity, and effect of job on family life satisfaction.

Results

Hypothesis 1: Males and females only differed in one family relationship area. Female Extension faculty’s scores of relationship equity (measured by the REI) were significantly lower than males’ (Mann-Whitney non parametric t-test, p < .000). The researchers note that this finding points to female Extension faculty perceiving less equity or fairness in their marital relationship than do male Extension faculty (Martin & Morris, 2005). Hypothesis 2: Extension faculty differed significantly by specialty or employment responsibility in the following areas: relationship equity (F = 3.57, p < .002); marital conflict (F = 2.18, p < .045); and effect of job on family life satisfaction (F = 4.45, p < .000). Family and Consumer Science agents had significantly lower levels of marital conflict than those with dual appointments in Agriculture/4-H Youth or Family and Consumer Sciences/4-H Youth. Family and Consumer Science Agents also perceived significantly higher levels of marital equity than Agriculture/4-H Youth agents. 4-H Youth Development faculty had a significantly more positive view of the effect of their work on family life than Agricultural Extension faculty and combined Family and Consumer Sciences/4-H Youth Extension faculty. It is unknown whether these differences are a function of the job responsibilities involved in each specialty area (e.g., dual responsibilities versus one area of concentration) and/or the background in family life and youth development that Family and Consumer Science as well as 4-H Youth Development faculty have been exposed to. Hypothesis 3: A noteworthy finding is that District/State Administrator Extension faculty differed significantly in their work satisfaction from Extension Agents I (F = 2.44, p < .002); Extension Agents II (F = 3.14, p < .000), and Extension Agents III or IV (F = 2.24, p < .002). This finding makes sense in light of high turnover rates among early career Extension faculty (usually within 3-5 years). District/State Administrators are expected to be more invested and committed to Cooperative Extension as compared to career entry Extension faculty. However, it is less easy to explain the differences between District/State Administrators and Extension faculty who have been in their careers from 8-15 or more years. According to the researchers (Martin & Morris, 2005), the results were as expected, particularly when comparing Extension faculty on their specialized areas; a number of prior studies support differences among agents on work and family life satisfaction by employment responsibility. Martin and Morris (2005) suggest using multi-method studies, for example, qualitative interviewing combined with quantitative methodology (mail surveys), as well as higher order quantitative analyses (structural equation modeling), to tap into reasons for these differences among Extension faculty by gender, specialty area, and position or title.

Limitations

A limitation in the study, according to the authors, is that respondents largely represent rural areas (Martin & Morris, 2005). Moreover, the sample is limited in terms of ethnic diversity. Cultural influences on commitment to family life and relationships outside work may provide new insights and findings. Work culture or climate is also an area to study with respect to how such climate differs by employment or specialty area. Although Extension faculty from a diversity of family forms were represented in the sample (single parents, divorced, widowed, single), there was an emphasis on characteristics of the marital (perhaps extending to premarital) relationship as a representation of family life. Including additional measures of family commitment and relationships as they are affected by the work environment would more appropriately characterize a diversity of family forms. Moreover, collecting data from the spouses (or significant others/family members) of county Extension faculty will increase the comprehension of results, particularly with respect to perceptions of marital equity (Martin & Morris, 2005).

Implications

What might these findings mean for Cooperative Extension in Florida, the Southeast, and the United States?
Encouraging family life education professionals (usually FCS Agents) to conduct workshops serving Extension faculty in other specialty areas on relationship education (Martin & Morris, 2005), as well as other community audiences.
Having youth development educators facilitate workshops with Extension faculty in other disciplines (e.g., Agriculture/4-H) on how to address the developmental needs of youth at the programmatic and personal/familial level
Creating supportive, family-friendly work environments at the organizational level, with the input of family life educators. (Martin & Morris, 2005)
Offering new faculty workshops on stress and time management. More seasoned county faculty - those in the field seven or more years - can help educate newer employees during these workshops by generating discussion and providing illustrated examples. Outside of the workshop setting, more experienced faculty can mentor new Extension faculty.

From: Martin, A.B., & Morris, M.L. (November, 2005). Work/family variable relationships of county Extension agents. Unpublished manuscript presented at the National Council on Family Relations annual conference, Phoenix, AZ.

For more information contact:

April B. Martin, M.S.
Extension Agent
DeKalb County
PO BOX 88
Smithville, TN 37166
Phone: (615)-597-4945
Fax: (615)-597-1421
Email: amartin3@utk.edu

Additional references (from Martin & Morris, 2005):

Blanding, L.G. (1995) Relational quality and household division of labor as predictors of marital, parental, and work satisfaction for dual-earner men and women .A Dissertation. University of Tennessee, 1 - 136.

Boltes, B., Lippke, L, & Gregory E. (1995). Employee satisfaction in extension: a Texas study. Journal of Extension, 33, 1-3.

Bowen, C, Radhakrishna, R., & Keyser, R. (1994). Job satisfaction and commitment of 4-H agents. Journal of Extension, 32, 1-3.

Eggeman, K., Moxley, V., & Schumm, W.R. (1985). Assessing spouses perceptions of Gottman's temporal form of marital conflict. Psychological Reports, 57, 171-181.

Fetsch, R.J. & Kennington, M.S. (1997). Balancing work and family in cooperative extension: history, effective programs, and future directions. Journal of Extension, 35:1, 1 - 7.

Igodan, O.C. & NewComb, L.H. (1986). Are you experiencing burnout? Symptoms and coping strategies for extension professionals. Journal of Extension, 24, 4 - 7.

Kelser, K. (1989). Job satisfaction and perceived in-service needs of Iowa cooperative extension personnel. Dissertation. Iowa State University.

Lepley, T. (2003). Work, Life, and Effect of Job on Family Satisfaction of Texas Extension Agents. Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX.

Lobel, S.A. (1992). A value-laden approach to integrating work and family life. Human Resource Management, 31:3, 249 - 265.

Martin, A. & Morris, M.L. (2002). Work/Family variables influencing the work satisfaction of Tennesee Extension Agents. Paper published in the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference Proceedings in Honolulu, HI.

Riggs, K., Beus, K. (1993). Job satisfaction in extension. Journal of Extension, Summer, 15-17.

Sabatelli, R.M. & Cecil-Pigo, E.F. (1985). Relational independence and commitment in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, (4), 931-937

Schumm, W.R, Paff-Bergen, L.A., Hatch, R.C., Obiorah, F.C., Copeland, J.M., Meens, L.D., & Bugaighis, M.A. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the kansas marital satisfaction scale. Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 381 - 387.

St. Pierre, T.L. (1984). The relationship between work and family life of county extension agents in Pennsylvania. A dissertation. Pennsylvania State University.

Strazdins, L. & Broom, D.H. (2004). Acts of love and work: Gender imbalance in emotional work and women’s psychological distress. Journal of Family Issues, 25:3, 356-358.

Thomas, L.T., & Ganster, D.C. ( 1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400-410.

Umberson, D. (1989). Relationships with children: Explaining parents' psychological well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 999 - 1012.

Yang, N. (1998). An international perspective on socioeconomic changes and their effects on life stress and career success of working women. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 63(3), 15-21.

Cooperative Extension, work-life balance