The authors review existing knowledge about strengths-based approaches for boys and men of color. The broader goal is to contribute to the development of a research, program, and policy agenda based on the current state of scientific knowledge regarding the causes and appropriate interventions for violence, and the most effective ways to promote resilience. The authors also identify strengths and weaknesses of the scientific base, and provide a detailed description of the current state of violence programming for boys and men of color.
- Although approximately 5,000 scholarly articles are published on violence every year, there are fewer than 10 articles a year that take a strengths- based approach to understanding and reducing violence among boys and men of color. Although we knew this was an understudied area, we were still surprised by the small size of the evidence base.
- Ideally, prevention and intervention programs would rest on a firm foundation of basic science regarding the key protective factors for reducing violence and victimization among boys and men of color. Unfortunately, we identified only 10 studies that specifically focused on protective factors for reducing violence among boys and men of color. There is an urgent need for more research on strengths among boys and men of color.
- The protective factors research that exists generally supports the importance of key domains that have been previously identified for other groups (European American people and women of color): social support, positive connections with family and community, various self-regulatory abilities, and interest in traditional culture or other sources of meaning.
- All-male programs reported fewer adverse effects (significant results in the undesired direction) than majority-male, mixed-gender programs.
- Cultural Connectedness programs had the highest rates of adverse effects—fully half (50 percent) of the programs that included content in this area reported significant effects in the undesired direction. This was by far the highest rate of adverse effects. Although we remain optimistic about the potential of cultural connectedness programming, we caution that it might be difficult to present a unifying vision of “culture” to many groups. Some participants might find traditional values are in opposition to their own beliefs, or they may find that generic African, Latin, Asian, or Native values do not represent the specifics of their own cultural experience. More research needs to be done to identify the best way to support racial and cultural identity as protective factors for violence.
- Programs focused on promoting interpersonal relationships also had high rates of adverse effects (found in 41 percent of program evaluations including such content). Such content may also have underappreciated complexities, such as inadvertently promoting relationships with dysfunctional family members and friends.
- In contrast, studies that included content related to redefining masculinity, developing a range of specific strengths (such as self-regulation or career development), and promoting overall well-being (such as by teaching general cognitive restructuring principles or mindfulness) all had relatively low rates of adverse effects (ranging from 0 percent to 13.5 percent).
- There were differences observed across our four main racial and ethnic groups (African American, Latino American, Asian American, and American Indian/Alaska Native). Asian American and American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) boys and men were more likely to be included in prevention (versus intervention). Similarly, Asian American and AI/AN boys and men were more likely to be offered programming in school settings than African American and Latino American boys and men.
- Almost one in three programs (30 percent) offered to AI/AN boys and men included content related to cultural connectedness, versus lower rates for other groups (9–18 percent). African American boys and men were most likely to receive training in basic skills and strengths.
- The findings suggest that racial and ethnic stereotypes are seeping into the programming choices made by providers working with boys and men of color. Given the lack of a scientific database to guide decision making, it is not surprising that other factors are influencing program design. These factors could include stereotypes about Asian Americans as “model minorities,” positive images of American Indian traditions and cultures, and negative stereotypes about African Americans, Latino Americans, and violence.
WHAT TO READ NEXT
Published By
Funded By
- Annie E. Casey Foundation
- Atlantic Philanthropies
- W.K. Kellogg Foundation
- Marguerite Casey Foundation
- Executives' Alliance to Expand Opportunities for Boys and Men of Color
Copyright
- Copyright 2017 by RISE for Boys and Men of Color. All rights reserved.
Document Type
Language
Geography
Linked Data show/hide