Trauma, Natural Disaster, and the Transition to Adulthood

1. Trauma, Natural Disaster, and the Transition to Adulthood

5. Hurricane Katrina 2005 Timeline Hurricane Katrina came into the Gulf on August 25, and increased to a Category 5 (winds peaking at 175 mph) by August 28. Mandatory evacuation of New Orleans ordered on August 28. Estimates are that ~1M (of ~1.2M) residents evacuated. Landfall in Louisiana: August 29. Category 3 with winds of ~125 mph. Extensive wind damage. 53 levee breaches produced extensive flooding: 80% of the city of New Orleans was flooded as of September 2, with water levels reaching 20 feet. It took weeks to pump the city out. Both a “natural” and “man made” disaster.

6. Hurricane Katrina Overall effects: Total costs estimated to be $81.2 billion. $30 billion in Federal aid. 1836 deaths, majority in Louisiana. 90,000 square miles declared a disaster area (Equal to the entire land mass of the UK) Displaced 650,000 people Destroyed 217,000 homes 60% of housing stock in New Orleans city was destroyed 30% of housing stock in New Orleans MSA was destroyed New Orleans City lost 29.1% of its population between 2000 and 2010. (Detroit lost 22.2%)

7. The Opening Doors Sample N=1019, at baseline • 92% female • 85% black • 19% married • Average age 26 • 98% ever worked • 71% receiving government benefits. • 52% currently employed • 43% first in family to attend college • 69% had access to a working car • Average age of children 3 years • A disproportionate number come from the 9th Ward.

8. Baseline Survey 11/03-2/05 N=1019 12 Month Survey Sample A 12/04-8/05 N=492 Hurricane Katrina 8/25/05 Post Katrina Survey Sample A 5/06-2/07 N=402 Response Rate 82% Post Katrina 12 Month Sample B 3/06-2/07 N=309 Response Rate 58% Qualitative Interviews N=57 Second Follow Up Spring 09-10 Samples A and B 1019 eligible N=720 Response Rate 70.6% Genetic Study N=270 Qualitative Interviews N=63

9. Qualitative Interviews N=120 • First Wave Conducted after the 2006-2007 survey and linked to survey responses (57 interviews) • Second Wave Conducted after the 2009-2010 survey and linked to survey and previous qualitative responses. (63 interviews) • Equal number of people who were back in New Orleans, and who had relocated to Texas. • Covered Hurricane Experiences, life history, politics, intergroup relations, experiences of young adulthood, and questions about how their children are doing. • Transcribed and coded using Atlas Ti. • Interviews were linked to the longitudinal survey data to contextualize the interviews and to give a rich understanding of the trajectories of individuals.

10. Advantages of Our Sample • Most studies of disasters do not have data on people before the disaster. We had two waves of data on Sample A and one wave on Sample B before the hurricane. Our data included • physical and mental health • economic resources • social support • social trust • future aspirations and expectations • measures such as optimism, self esteem, confidence • Disasters have unequal impacts, generally exacerbating inequality and differentially affecting women, the poor, and racial minorities • The scope of Katrina makes it a very unusual and important disaster • Disasters are seldom studied longitudinally. We really do not know a lot about long term recovery.

12. Distribution of individual applications for assistance from FEMA in 2007 at the Metro area level.

13. Longitudinal Data on Resources and Outcomes

14. The Overall Picture • Psychological Resilience—defined as a return to pre-disaster levels of psychological functioning is the normal reaction to a disaster, even though it is remarkable. • Post traumatic growth is also widespread. Defined as subjective psychological gains directly related to the trauma they endured. • There is a lot of research on psychological resilience, very little on how social and economic resistance is related to it. • We know that community ties and social networks as well as socioeconomic resources are required for social well being. How does this affect recovery? • Recovery in New Orleans overall has been market driven, with federal money distributed on an individual basis. • New Orleans is recovering—but it is a changed city. Post Katrina it is smaller, older, more educated, less poor, fewer renters, fewer households with kids. New Orleans has its lowest poverty rate since 1979. • People who did not return are more likely to be poor, African American households with children. • Dilemma that they face: better individual opportunities outside New Orleans vs. the sense of community they had. • A false dilemma?

15. Katrina Traumas In the week after Hurricane Katrina hit was there a time when you:

16. Trauma Exposure 80.8% experienced home damage 32.1% experienced the death of a friend or relative (Paxson, et al. 2012.) Rise in domestic violence and stressed relationships with partners, even among people who had not experienced this before (Lowe, Rhodes, & Scoglio, in press).

17. Post traumatic growth5 subscales • Relating to Others • “I have a greater sense of closeness to others” • New Possibilities • “I developed new interests” • Personal Strength • “ I have a greater feeling of self reliance” • Spiritual Change • “I have a stronger religious faith” • Appreciation of life • “I have a greater appreciation for the value of my own life”

18. Post-traumatic growth • PTG was found to be strongly positively associated with symptoms of PTSD • Only those participants with high levels of PTSD at both time points maintained high levels of PTG over time (Lowe, Manove, & Rhodes, 2012).

19. Religion and PTG Pre-disaster religious involvement and faith were predictive of better post-disaster social resources which, in turn, were associated with lower levels of psychological distress (Chan, Perez, & Rhodes, 2010). Religious coping affected post-hurricane outcomes (Chan, Perez, & Rhodes, 2012).

20. Child Functioning Concerns about child welfare affected maternal mental health (Lowe, Chan, & Rhodes 2011). There were strong associations between child externalizing and internalizing symptoms and maternal psychological functioning (Lowe, Godoy, Carter, & Rhodes, 2012).

29. Post traumatic growth5 subscales • Relating to Others • “I have a greater sense of closeness to others” • New Possibilities • “I developed new interests” • Personal Strength • “ I have a greater feeling of self reliance” • Spiritual Change • “I have a stronger religious faith” • Appreciation of life • “I have a greater appreciation for the value of my own life”

30. Post-traumatic growth PTG was found to be strongly positively associated with symptoms of PTSD Only those participants with high levels of PTSD at both time points maintained high levels of PTG over time (Lowe, Manove, & Rhodes, 2012).

32. Other Findings • Most people report personal and spiritual growth from the experience. Those who blamed God or who thought that God was punishing them were the most psychologically distressed four years later. • For people with low social support at baseline, pet loss was the most significant predictor of psychological distress, and for many it was long lasting. • People who had high Psychological Distress at baseline significantly overestimated flood depths, relative to geocoded data. • Optimism was one of the best predictors of who did not evacuate.

33. College Re-enrollment Pet Loss Pre-disaster social support Child-related stressors Natural mentors Intimate relationships Interviewer race Decisions to evacuate Resilience Trajectories Children’s Functioning Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Methods Religion Barriers to Community College Completion Geographic Mobility Relocation Decision Making Neighborhood Attainment Employment Trajectories Changes in BMI Post Traumatic Growth Conservation of Resources Theory Transition to Adulthood Studies to Date

34. Current studies Exposure meta-analysis PTG as a personality construct Disaster and Health (BMI) Legal issues, housing, etc. Community College students

35. How effective is youth mentoring? • When are programs most beneficial? • How does mentoring promote positive youth development? • What are the implications for policy, practice, and research?

37. Effect sizes 0.5 Medium Effect 0.4 0.3 Empirically- Based Size of Effect on Youth Outcomes 0.2 Small Practices Effect Theory-Based 0.1 Practices 0 -0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Number of Practices

38. Study level variables (moderators) associated with different effects

39. How effective is youth mentoring? • When are programs most beneficial? • How does mentoring promote positive youth development? • What are the implications for policy, practice, and research?

40. Stronger effects when… • Youth with • With moderate personal/environmental risk • Who are male • satisfactory, but not strong baseline relationships.

41. Effects of Mentoring on Youth with Different Relational Profiles (Schwartz, Rhodes, & Chan (2010). Developmental Psychology

42. Stronger effects when… • Mentors who • Fit of background/ training with program goals • Play an active, advocacy role • Are sensitive to socioeconomic & cultural influences • Have higher self-efficacy • Hold positive attitudes toward youth

43. Measuring mentors’ attitudes • The scale asked mentors to rate how many “kids in your community” could be characterized by indicators of youth development: • work hard at school • respect adults • are trouble-makers • are fun to be around • expect things to be handed to them • try to do their best • are interested in learning Grossman et al., 2007

44. Mentor attitudes and youth outcomes • Mentees who were paired with high school mentors with positive attitudes about youth were more emotionally engaged with mentor than those paired with more negative mentors • Those who were paired with mentors with negative attitudes about youth were less emotionally engaged with and showed some negative outcomes. Karcher, Rhodes, Herrera, & Davidson (2010). Applied Developmental Science

46. Stronger effects when… • Relationships characterized by • consistency • closeness • structure • appropriate meeting times • duration

48. The role of duration Grossman & Rhodes (2002). American Journal of Community Psychology

50. Re-matching?