Premium
Exploring Risk in Early Adolescent African American Youth
Author(s) -
Farmer Thomas W.,
Price LeShawndra N.,
O'Neal Keri K.,
Leung Man-Chi,
Goforth Jennifer B.,
Cairns Beverley D.,
Reese Le'Roy E.
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
american journal of community psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.113
H-Index - 112
eISSN - 1573-2770
pISSN - 0091-0562
DOI - 10.1023/b:ajcp.0000014318.16652.30
Subject(s) - health psychology , psychology , demography , african american , inner city , dropout (neural networks) , intervention (counseling) , rural area , public health , gerontology , environmental health , socioeconomics , medicine , psychiatry , sociology , ethnology , nursing , pathology , machine learning , computer science
Two studies were conducted to explore the degree to which single‐ and multiple‐risk profiles were evident in samples of African American early adolescents in low‐income inner‐city, rural, and suburban schools. Study 1 examined early adolescent risk status (i.e., single, multiple) in relation to later adjustment in a representative sample (70% European American, 30% African American). Youth who experienced a single risk in early adolescence had moderately increased levels of school dropout and criminal arrests, whereas youth with multiple risks (i.e., combination of 2 or more risks) had significantly increased levels of school dropout, criminal arrests, and teen parenthood. Study 2 examined the extent to which single‐ and multiple‐risk profiles were evident in cross‐sectional samples of African American youth from low‐income inner‐city and rural areas. About one fourth of both the inner‐city and rural samples of African American youth were composed of youth in the single‐risk category. A significantly greater proportion of boys in the inner‐city sample (20%) than boys in the rural sample (13%) experienced multiple risks. Girls across the rural and inner‐city samples did not differ in terms of risk. Overall, more than 60% of African American youth in these two low‐income samples did not evidence risk for later adjustment problems. Implications for research and intervention are discussed.