Resilience in the Time of COVID-19: Familial Processes, Coping, and Mental Health in Latinx Adolescents

ABSTRACT

Objective

This study investigated COVID-19 stressors and silver linings, familism values, familial resilience, and coping, and their relation to internalizing symptoms among Latinx youth.

Method

A community sample of 135 Latinx adolescents completed online surveys 6-months apart (M age = 16, 59.3% female; majority U.S-born).

Results

COVID-19 stress was associated with more depressive (β = .18, p = .027) and anxiety (β = .21, p = .010) symptoms. However, COVID-19 stress was related to higher levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms only for youth who engaged in low (β = .38, p < .001; β = .38, p = .001) and medium (β = .19, p = .004; β = .22, p = .011) levels of problem-focused engagement coping. Higher levels of family resilience were associated with lower cross-sectional depressive symptoms (β = −.28, p = .004). For longitudinal models, a significant relation between COVID-19 stress and problem-focused engagement predicted Time 2 depressive symptoms (β = −.20, p < .041).

Conclusion

Latinx youth who experienced high levels of COVID-19 stress who enacted problem-focused coping fared better across the pandemic. Familial resilience did not carry the same longitudinal benefit but did bolster mental health concurrently. Clinicians should endeavor to buttress familial resilience processes in addition to problem-engaged coping for Latinx youth in treatment.

RESUMEN

Objetivo: Este estudio con jóvenes Latinx investigó los estresores relacionados con la pandemia del COVID-19 y sus lados buenos (silver linings), valores de familismo, resiliencia familiar, y las estrategias para encarar el estrés, y su relación con los síntomas de internalización.

Método: Una muestra comunitaria de 135 adolescentes Latinx completaron una encuesta en línea con 6 meses de diferencia (M_edad = 16, 59.3% mujeres, la mayoría nacida en EE. UU.).

Resultados: Los estresores relacionados con la pandemia estuvieron asociados con más síntomas depresivos (β = .18, p = .027) y de ansiedad (β = .21, p = .010). Sin embargo, los estresores relacionados con la pandemia del COVID-19 se relacionaron más depresión y ansiedad solamente en los jóvenes con niveles bajos (β = .38, p < .001; β = .38, p = .001) y medios (β = .19, p = .004; β = .22, p = .011) de estrategias para encarar el estrés enfocadas en solucionando problemas. Niveles altos de resiliencia familiar estuvieron asociados con niveles más bajos de síntomas depresivos a nivel transversal (β = −.28, p = .004). Para los modelos longitudinales, una relación significativa entre el estrés del COVID-19 y niveles bajos de la estrategia de enfoque en problemas predijo los síntomas depresivos en el Tiempo 2 (β = −.20, p < .041).

Conclusión: Jóvenes Latinx que experimentaron altos niveles del estrés del COVID-19 y emplearon estrategias enfocadas en los problemas lidiaron mejor con la pandemia. La resiliencia familiar no mantuvo sus beneficios longitudinales a lo largo del tiempo, pero sí contribuyó al bienestar psicológico a nivel transversal. Los clínicos deben promover la resiliencia familiar y las estrategias para encarar el estrés centradas en la solución de problemas en los tratamientos diseñados para las juventudes Latinxs.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionally impacted the well-being of the Latinx¹ community. Relative to non-Latinx Whites, Latinx populations experienced greater infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates during the pandemic (Acosta et al., 2021). The Latinx community also suffered significant economic hardships such as the loss of work hours, inability to pay bills, food insecurity, unemployment, and increased debt (Blanco et al., 2022; Karpman et al., 2020). Cumulatively, this led low-income Latinx youth to be exposed to a greater number of health and financial stressors during the pandemic relative to low-income White youth (Padilla & Thomson, 2021). In North Carolina, in particular, Latinx youth and their families experienced these disparities in terms of COVID-19 positivity rates (due to a large portion in front-line occupations), greater risk due to documentation status, and language barriers in healthcare access (Hendrix, 2021).

Simply put, the pandemic had devastating effects on the Latinx community – a community that was already experiencing a confluence of stressors, including a hostile policy climate, rising rates of racial-ethnic discrimination, family separation, and deportations (Barajas-Gonzalez et al., 2018). Yet, in the face of stress, families can adapt, cope, and survive – especially immigrant families (Coll et al., 1996). In fact, many Latinx youth and families have also reported COVID-19 silver linings (i.e. something positive during times of difficulty) such as increased family time and improved relationships (e.g., Penner et al., 2021). Applying the Integrative Model of Child Development (Coll et al., 1996) that centers adaptive family functioning and coping as supporting youth’s development, the current paper extends work on the cultural resilience processes in Latinx families during COVID-19. Specifically, the paper aims to describe how Latinx youth experienced COVID-19 in terms of stress and silver linings as well as their mental health symptoms and how culturally-informed familial and individual resilience processes helped to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 stress on depressive and anxiety symptoms.

Latinx Youth and COVID-19 Stressors and Silver Linings

Latinx youth experienced a host of COVID-19 stressors. In a study of Latinx adolescents, disruptions included increased childcare duties, financial stressors (e.g., familial job loss or cut hours), and family hospitalizations (Roche et al., 2022). Furthermore, these stressors piled up such that youth who experienced more economic and health impacts also had greater childcare responsibilities. Similarly, in a largely Latinx sample, almost half of youth reported parental job loss or cutting of hours that resulted in significant financial stress (Penner et al., 2021). One quarter disclosed that their parents experienced stress due to the pandemic and feelings of loneliness. In a qualitative study of mostly Latinx youth, almost all the youth reported experiencing similar financial stressors and feelings of loneliness due to missing peers and extended family, and further, youth mourned the loss of important school traditions like graduations (Cortés-García et al., 2022).

Similar to other racial-ethnic groups, Latinx youth and their families also experienced some pandemic silver linings (e.g., Eales et al., 2021; Hussong et al., 2022). Principally, these revolved around increased time with family members (Cortés-García et al., 2022) and improved family relationships (Hammons et al., 2022; Penner et al., 2021). For Latinx families with essential workers (e.g., grocery store workers), parents reported being able to continue working their usual hours, and even being able to work overtime hours to make up for any income losses (Blanco et al., 2022). Despite this emerging work, no past studies to our knowledge have examined the simultaneous impact of COVID-19 stressors and silver linings on Latinx youth mental health and how these are mitigated by cultural resilience factors.

COVID-19 and Mental Health in Latinx Youth

Given the increases in internalizing symptoms experienced in adolescence in conjunction with the importance of social connection at this developmental stage (Merikangas et al., 2010), COVID-19 may have posed a unique mental health risk in adolescence. This may be especially true for Latinx adolescents who already report greater levels of internalizing symptoms relative to non-Latinx White youth (Twenge & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2002), and face racialized stressors like discrimination. Indeed, Latinx youth reported worse mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic relative to their non-Latinx peers (e.g., Mpofu et al., 2022). Further, Latinx adolescents also contend with increased familial obligations as they get older which can sometimes result in stress (Sy, 2006). In fact, examining mental health functioning pre-and post-pandemic in Latinx youth, increased childcare responsibilities due to COVID-19 hospitalizations and job loss resulted in greater internalizing and externalizing symptoms as well as worse academic performance (Roche et al., 2022). On the other hand, another study documented post-pandemic decreases in mental health symptoms even though youth reported having significant financial stressors due to the pandemic (Penner et al., 2021). It may be that these youth experienced COVID-19 silver linings that were perceived as positive, including seeing the additional time that was spent with family as a benefit instead of burden. The importance of adolescent perceptions as predictive of mental health aligns with research with Latinx youth that finds that perceptions of fairness of obligations are important to consider when examining familial processes and Latinx youth mental health (Toro et al., 2019).

To understand variability in COVID-19 adaptation, Prime et al. (2020) proposed a model that centered the ability of families to adapt in this stressful time, arguing that familial processes, rather than only being disrupted in the pandemic, could also have been strengthened. Their conceptual model drew heavily from Walsh’s family resilience model (2003, 2016) positing that familial communication, organization, and belief systems could mitigate the negative impact of social disruptions and caregiver well-being on youth mental health. They argued that familial resilience is rooted in the strengthening of familial relationships as family members perceive COVID-19 stressors as surmountable, share in belief systems that minimize catastrophizing, and believe that their family is strong and capable of overcoming adversity.

In Walsh’s model (2003), maintaining a confident and positive outlook for the family, providing a relational view of resilience whilst normalizing and contextualizing distress, and connecting to larger values and purpose, including spiritual practices, all serve as the cornerstones of the shared belief systems that define family resilience. Walsh is clear that resilience must be viewed as interpersonal instead of individual such that collective agency, familial optimism, and family perseverance fuel positive adaptation, not only for the family, but also for the individuals residing in it. This means that the notion of “we got this” would be just as impactful to individual wellbeing as “I got this,” as individuals derive a deep sense of security from the belief that their families can weather the storm. Importantly, familial resilience processes – especially shared familial beliefs – are influenced by cultural values (Prime et al., 2020; Walsh, 2003). For immigrant groups who espouse values entrenched in family support and connection (Stein et al., 2014), these resilience processes may already be built in, cultivated by decades of surviving oppressive systems and thriving in challenging situations (Coll et al., 1996; Falicov, 2014).

Supporting this premise, the promotive impact of familism values has been well-documented in both Latinx adults and youth for a plethora of outcomes, including internalizing and externalizing symptoms (see Cahill et al., 2021 for a recent meta-analysis). Familism values dictate that family members subjugate their individual wellbeing for that of the family – prioritizing the collective over the individual. They emphasize the importance of familial closeness, fulfilling obligations to provide financial, instrumental, and emotional support to the family, and being loyal to one’s family (Stein et al., 2014). Familism values influence familial behaviors and climate such that it is associated with greater familial warmth and support and less familial conflict (Cahill et al., 2021). The receipt of social support and familial closeness serve to mediate the positive effects of familism values on mental health (Campos et al., 2014). Finally, familism values can buffer the effects of stress on well-being (Corona et al., 2017). In the Integrative Model of Child Development, familism values are posited as key to fostering adaptive developmental outcomes in the face of racism and racial economic disparities (Coll et al., 1996), and thus, familism values might have promoted better mental health during the pandemic and served to buffer COVID-19 stress.

Although there is less familial resilience research as defined by Walsh (2003), it is an important construct to consider as it may be one of the ways that familism values promote well-being. Familism values can set the stage for many of the key aspects of the shared beliefs in the familial resilience model, including providing meaning making, collective efficacy, and a sense of familial support. Familial resilience can serve to support Latinx youth when encountering stress. Consistent with this hypothesis, a recent study found that familial resilience attenuated the effects of racial-ethnic discrimination on depressive symptoms for Latinx youth (Ramos et al., 2021). Thus, familial resilience may also have helped Latinx families weather pandemic stress.

The limited work examining the impact of the pandemic specifically on the family functioning and mental health of Latinx families points toward these resilience processes as being critical. For example, Latinx parents and youth in different qualitative studies highlighted a strong connection with family during the pandemic, including greater support and improved parent child-relationship, and extolled the benefits of spending more time with family on their well-being (Cortés-García et al., 2022; Hammons et al., 2022). Interestingly, this stands in contrast to work in majority non-Latinx White samples where parents shared a more mixed picture of familial cohesion and increased familial conflict and stress (i.e., Eales et al., 2021). These silver linings extended to sibling dynamics such that school closures were associated with more sibling positivity and were not related to sibling negativity in Mexican-origin families (Sun et al., 2021). Most importantly, during the pandemic, positive familial functioning (i.e., greater parent support, less conflict with parent) was associated with better mental health for Latinx youth (Penner et al., 2021).

However, only a handful of studies have examined either familial resilience or familism values explicitly as promotive or protective in the context of COVID-19. In a sample of Latinx adolescents, interpersonal and relational resilience (neither is familial resilience as defined by Walsh) was associated with less COVID-19 stress symptoms, but resilience was not a moderator of ACES stressors on stress symptoms (D’Costa et al., 2021). For Latinx college students, familism values were associated with reporting a positive change in family relationships during the pandemic (Volpert-Esmond et al., 2022). Although this research did not explore mental health outcomes, it lends support for the notion that familism values facilitated the cementing of closer relationships in this time of stress. Only one study to our knowledge examined the link between familism values and mental health in Latinx populations in the context of COVID-19. This study with college students in the United States, Latin America, and Spain found that familism values were associated with more post-traumatic stress symptoms, and surprisingly, neither coping nor social support were associated with fewer symptoms (Torres et al., 2022). This finding aligns with that of Roche et al. (2022) whereby increased caretaking responsibilities in Latinx youth resulted in worse mental health. Thus, although theory and some past work would suggest that familism values and familial resilience should be promotive (and protective by buffering the effects of stress on mental health) during COVID-19, this has not yet been established in Latinx youth.

Coping in the Time of COVID-19

Resilience is broadly defined as multifaceted and complex involving the mobilization of multiple resources across different systems in the face of threat to promote adaptation (e.g, individual, and familial; Masten & Motti-Stefanidi, 2020). During COVID-19, parallel resilience processes could be coordinated across these systems, ultimately leading to better outcomes. Thus, the familial resilience processes noted above could be further enhanced when accompanied with individual resilience processes like coping. Emerging work on adolescent mental health and COVID-19 has examined how coping processes served to lessen the emotional damage of the pandemic (e.g., Hussong et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021), but these processes have not been examined in concert with familial resilience nor in Latinx youth. This is a critical gap in the literature given that the synergistic coordination of adaptive cultural and familial processes along with individual child characteristics (i.e., coping) is hypothesized to lead to adaptive youth outcomes (Coll et al., 1996). In the review below, problem-solving coping focuses on dealing with stressors head-on. More broadly, engaged coping processes are purposeful efforts to regulate affect, including active cognitive restructuring and seeking emotional support, which can include problem-solving coping (Compas et al., 2017).

Both engaged and problem-solving coping appear to have lessened the mental health burden of the pandemic. Engaged coping predicted better behavioral and psychological outcomes in a sample of Spanish youth while disengaged coping was associated with worse outcomes (Domínguez-Álvarez et al., 2020). Two studies of Chinese youth found that problem-solving coping was associated with better mental health (Duan et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2020). Furthermore, problem-solving coping buffered the negative mental health impact on primarily White adolescents such that those with greater problem-solving coping demonstrated a smaller increase in mental health symptoms post the onset of the pandemic (Hussong et al., 2021). Only one study to our knowledge examined concomitant individual coping and familial processes as predictive of mental health in an adolescent sample. Secondary control coping (a type of engaged coping involving cognitive strategies like reappraisal) and parental support predicted greater same-day positive affect, suggesting a promotive effect (Wang et al., 2021). The buffering effects on negative affect were more nuanced, such that parental support buffered against high levels financial stress in terms of negative affect, and secondary control coping was only associated with less negative affect at low levels of health stress. This indicates that consistent with theory, resilience is both context and system dependent (Masten & Motti-Stefanidi, 2020), and both familial and individual resilience are important to consider in the context of COVID-19.

Together, the research suggests that individual coping patterns, particularly engagement or problem-solving coping, helped adolescents deal with the mental health ramifications of the pandemic, but no studies have explicitly tested this link in a Latinx sample. This is important because past work suggests that coping may look different for Latinx families. Indeed, for Latinx youth, problem-focused coping that includes both cognitive and behavioral approaches may be the most culturally congruent and protective (i.e., including primary and secondary control strategies) (Gonzalez et al., 2022). Although this coping pattern may be effective for other youth as well, this study demonstrated through factor analyses that the composition of coping subscales differed from past research with primarily non-Latinx White youth, suggesting that this constellation of coping is relevant for Latinx youth. Aligning with familial resilience beliefs, in qualitative interviews, Latinx immigrant youth relied on optimism to fuel their positive self-talk, on relational coping to deal with stressors, and engaged in behavioral and planful coping techniques to move forward when encountering obstacles (Gonzalez et al., 2022). As such, Latinx youth relied on both their families and their own coping, suggesting that both can foster adaptation in the context of COVID-19 stress.

Current Study

The current study sought to describe the experience of Latinx youth throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, not just in its immediate aftermath as has already been documented in the literature. We examined both the COVID-19 stressors and silver linings endorsed by youth as well as depressive and anxiety symptoms. Hypothesis 1: Consistent with the literature in the pandemic (e.g., Penner et al., 2021; Roche et al., 2022), we hypothesized that Latinx youth would report high levels of COVID-19 stress and depressive and anxiety symptoms, and that youth would also report COVID-19 silver linings around spending time with family. Hypothesis 2: Based on this same literature (Hussong et al., 2022; Roche et al., 2022), we hypothesized that COVID-19 stress would be associated with worse mental health, and silver linings would be associated with better mental health. Due to work on familism (e.g., Cahill et al., 2021), familial resilience (e.g., Ramos et al., 2021), and coping (e.g., Hussong et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021), we also examined the promotive and protective role of familism values, familial resilience, and problem-focused coping. Hypothesis 3: We hypothesized that all three would be associated with less depressive and anxiety symptoms, and that all three would buffer the relation between COVID-19 stress and mental health. We tested these questions cross-sectionally as well as longitudinally (e.g., predicting symptoms 6 months later).

Method

Participants

Participants were 135 Latinx middle and high schoolers (59.3% female; 0.02% nonbinary) recruited from North Carolina who completed two surveys 6-months apart with Time 1 data collection starting in October 2020 and ending in September 2021.104 adolescents participated in both waves of data collection (77% retention rate). The average age of adolescents at Time 1 was 16 years old (SD = 1.27, range = 13–18). The majority of the sample (n = 115, 85.2%) were U.S.-born. Of the adolescents who were foreign-born (n = 20, 14.8%), 45% were born in South America, 30% in Central America, and 25% in Mexico. The majority of primary caregivers were foreign-born, with most being born in Mexico (primary caregiver 1 n = 94, 69.6%; primary caregiver 2 n = 80, 59.3%), with others born in Central and South American countries (primary caregiver 1 n = 29, 21.5%; primary caregiver 2 n = 32, 23.7%) and the United States (primary caregiver 1 n = 12, 8.9%; primary caregiver 2 n = 19, 14.1%).

Procedure

After receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the authors’ university, participants were recruited through flyer distributions outside of flea markets, food distributions, and community events and through partnerships with Latinx-serving, community-based organizations. Participants were also asked to send the flyer to friends or classmates who might be interested (i.e., snowball recruitment). Bilingual research assistants contacted interested participants to screen for eligibility over the phone and obtain verbal consent from a parental guardian. To be eligible for the study, youth must have been either in middle or high school a Time 1, self-identify as Latinx (i.e., Latino/Latina/Hispanic/Latinx), and be living in North Carolina.

Youth who met the criteria and had received parental consent were emailed a link to complete a 40-minute online survey through Qualtrics Survey Software for which adolescents were compensated with a $15 gift card. Six months later, participants were emailed another link to complete the follow-up survey on Qualtrics and were compensated with another $15 gift card. If participants completed both waves of the survey, they were entered in a drawing for a $100 gift card. The average number of weeks in between survey completions was 27 weeks or 6.75 months (SD = 4 weeks). Number of weeks in between time-points was not correlated significantly with any study or demographic variable. Attrition analyses suggested that drop-out was associated with age and nativity with younger (r = −.21,p = .014) and foreign-born (r = −.20, p = .018) adolescents being more likely to not participate in follow-up. Gender and income were not associated with drop-out.

Measures

Familism

Youth familism values were assessed at Time 1 using three subscales of the Mexican American Cultural Values Scale (MACVS; Knight et al., 2010) for a total of 16 items: support (six items; e.g., “It is always important to be united as a family”), obligation (5 items; e.g., “A person should share their home with relatives if they need a place to stay”), and referent (5 items e.g., “Children should always do things to make their parents happy”). Youth rated the degree to which they agreed with each item on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely). The 16 items were averaged together such that higher scores reflect stronger familism. Overall reliability of all items was .91.

Family Resilience

Family Resilience was assessed at Time 1 using the Maintaining a Positive Outlook subscale of the Family Resilience Assessment Scale (FRAS, Sixbey, 2005). The subscale consists of 6 items (e.g., “We have the strength to solve our problems;” “We can survive if another problem comes up”) and asks youth to decide how well each statement describes their family on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 4 (Strongly agree). This scale has been used extensively in physical health literature and its psychometric properties are well documented (e.g., Zhou et al., 2020). Responses were averaged with greater numbers indicating higher family resilience. Internal consistency was high (α = .93).

Problem-Focused Coping

The problem-focused engagement subscale of an adaptation of the Coping Strategies Inventory (CSI; Tobin et al., 1984) was used at Time 1 to assess problem-focused coping. The CSI was modified for the Raising Grateful Children (Hussong et al., 2021, 2022) study to assess youth’s coping specifically in response to COVID-19. Youth were asked to reflect on their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic and to rate how often they used 6 different problem-focused coping strategies, including primary control coping (e.g., “I made a plan of action and followed it”) and secondary control coping (e.g., “I tried to get a new angle on the situation;” “I looked for the silver lining and tried to find the bright side”). Strategies were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Very Much). Responses were averaged with higher scores indicating greater use of problem-focused coping. Cronbach’s alpha was .78.

COVID-Related Stress and COVID-Related Silver Linings

At Time 1, youth indicated whether they experienced 27 different events during the COVID-19 outbreak (11 positive life events,14 negative life events, and 2 neutral events) that were adapted and created for the Raising Grateful Children Study (Hussong et al., 2021, 2022). If youth indicated that they experienced an event, they were asked to rate how stressful or pleasant they found the event to be on a scale of −4 (Extremely bad) to 0 (neither good nor bad) to 4 (Extremely good). The neutral events were dropped due to having no clear valence. The negative life events (e.g., “unable to spend time in person with my friends because of COVID-19”) were rescored to range from 0 (collapsing over extremely good to neither good nor bad) to 4 (extremely bad). The rated unpleasantness of every negative event endorsed by youth was averaged to indicate COVID-19 stress. The positive life events (e.g., “I can put more time into my hobbies because of COVID-19”) were also rescored to range from 0 (collapsing over extremely bad to neither good nor bad) to 4 (extremely good). The rated pleasantness of every positive event was averaged to indicate COVID-19 silver linings.

Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms

Depressive and anxiety symptoms were assessed with the PROMIS Pediatric Short Form scales separate for each symptom cluster. Substantial qualitative and quantitative evidence supports the validity of PROMIS measures (e.g., DeWalt et al., 2007). A benefit of PROMIS measures is the ability to convert raw scores to a T-score metric with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10. Adolescents responded to the frequency of eight depressive (e.g., “I could not stop feeling sad”) and seven anxiety (e.g. “I worried about what could happen to me”) symptoms for the past seven days on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Almost Always). Items were averaged such that higher averages indicate greater severity of depressive (α at Time 1 = .95; α at Time 2 = .96) and anxiety symptoms (α at Time 1 = .93; α at Time 2 = .94).

Analytic Plan

For Hypothesis 1, descriptive analyses were examined. For Hypotheses 2 and 3, multiple regression analyses were conducted using Mplus version 8.7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017), which enters predictor variables and interactions into a model simultaneously. The full information maximum likelihood estimation was adopted to handle missing data. These hypotheses were tested with four models differing in their outcome: T1 depressive symptoms, T2 depressive symptoms (controlling for T1 depressive symptoms), T1 anxiety symptoms, and T2 anxiety symptoms (controlling for T1 anxiety symptoms). All predictor variables were measured at T1. Continuous predictor variables were mean-centered. Three interaction terms were created: familism*COVID-19 stress, family resilience*COVID-19 stress, and problem-focused coping*COVID-19 stress. Each model controlled for age and gender and included familism, family resilience, problem-focused coping, COVID-19 stress, COVID-19 silver linings, and the three interaction terms.

Results

Hypothesis 1: Descriptives

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, adolescents endorsed an average of 9 COVID-19 stressors (out of 14) and 5 COVID-19 silver linings (out of 11; see Table 1). For stressors, the top three negative events endorsed were being unable to participate in social activities and normal routines (86.5%), not being sure about when COVID-19 will end or what will happen in the future (85.7%), and having to change, postpone, or cancel important plans (84.2%). The stress ratings ranged from 1.28 to 2.19 on a scale of 0 to 4, suggesting these were somewhat distressing for youth. For silver linings, the top three endorsed were spending more time with family (67.7%), putting more time into hobbies (63.9%), and finding ways to help other people (50.4%). On a scale of 0 to 4, the rated pleasantness of a positive event ranged from 0.46 to 1.56. The two events with the highest average degree of pleasantness were family-oriented: getting along better with siblings (M = 1.56) and spending more time with family members (M = 1.54). Additionally, although 61.7% of the sample endorsed having to take on greater family responsibilities, this was the least stressful negative event that adolescents endorsed (M = 1.28).

Table 1. COVID-19 stressors and silver linings.

Negative Event	Percent Endorsed	Mean Stressfulness	Positive Event	Percent Endorsed	Mean Pleasantness
Not being sure about when COVID-19 will end or what will happen in the future	85.7%	2.19	I am getting along with my siblings better since COVID-19	49.6%	1.56
Difficulty completing school work online	79.7%	2.19	I am spending more time with my family because of COVID-19	67.7%	1.54
Having to change, postpone, or cancel important plans or events because of COVID-19	84.2%	2.13	I can put more time into my hobbies because of COVID-19	63.9%	1.44
Myself or someone close to me having symptoms or being diagnosed with COVID-19	58.6%	2.12	I am exercising more than I did before COVID-19	42.9%	1.27
My sleep schedule is messed up because of COVID-19	34.6%	2.07	I feel more creative since COVID-19	44.4%	1.27
Watching or hearing distressing news reports about COVID-19	83.5%	1.98	I am closer to my friends now because of COVID-19	33.8%	1.23
Unable to participate in social activities and normal routines because of COVID-19	86.5%	1.93	I am able to find ways to help other people during COVID-19	50.4%	1.05
Unable to spend time in person with my friends because of COVID-19	82.0%	1.88	I feel more connected to other people since COVID-19	31.6%	.95
Challenges at home or with others because of COVID-19 (e.g. arguing, lack of privacy, lack of personal space)	60.9%	1.88	I am going outside more than I did before COVID-19	25.6%	.88
Not being sure about myself or somebody close to me getting COVID-19	63.9%	1.88	I am sleeping better since COVID-19	22.6%	.86
Unable to complete school requirements because of COVID-19 (e.g. standardized tests, coursework)	47.4%	1.83	I am less stressed about schoolwork since COVID-19	19.5%	.46
Unable to spend time in person with my family because of COVID-19	49.6%	1.57
Because of my parents’ work, they are away a lot or unable to be around me and my family because of COVID-19	25.6%	1.47
Needing to take on greater family responsibilities because of COVID-19	61.7%	1.28

In terms of depressive and anxiety symptoms at Times 1 and 2, we converted the raw scores into standardized T-scores and categorized youth using the PROMIS cutoff points (50–55 = mild, 55–65 = moderate, >65 = severe). As we hypothesized, Latinx youth reported significant symptoms at both timepoints. At Time 1 (T1), 13.4% reported mild symptoms, 29.6% reported moderate symptoms, and 18.5% reported severe symptoms, suggesting that the sample had significant mental health distress. We found similar rates of anxiety with 13.4% reporting mild anxiety symptoms, 28.9% reporting moderate symptoms, and 14.1% reporting severe symptoms. At Time 2 (T2), we saw generally similar rates of mild depressive (16.2%) and anxiety symptoms (18.1%) than at T1. At T2, slightly fewer adolescents’ symptoms in the moderate (24.8% depressive and 20.0% anxious) and severe ranges (15.2% depressive and 13.3% anxiety). Table 2 displays correlations and descriptive statistics of the main variables. An examination of the means suggest that Latinx adolescents reported high levels of family resilience (M = 3.27 out of 4) and endorsement of familism values (M = 3.69 out of 5.00), and engaged in some problem-solving coping (M= 2.77 out of 5.00). According to correlations, T1 family resilience was associated with higher levels of familism, greater perceived COVID-19 silver linings, and higher levels of problem-focused coping. Moreover, greater COVID-19 stress was associated with higher levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Conversely, higher levels of familism and family resilience were associated with lower reported depressive and anxiety symptoms at T1. However, COVID-19 stress, familism, and family resilience at T1 were not associated with depressive symptoms at T2, and only familism was still related to anxiety symptoms at T2 such that those who reported higher levels of familism tended to report less anxiety symptoms six months later. Notably, problem-focused coping had no associations with mental health symptomatology at either time point.

Table 2. Means and correlations for composite scores of study variables (N = 135).

Variable	M (SD)	Range	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. T1 Depressive Symptoms	2.23 (1.04)	1 - 5
2. T1 Anxiety Symptoms	2.26 (1.05)	1 - 5	.83***
3. COVID-19 Stress	2.02 (1.01)	0 - 4	.20*	.22*
4. COVID-19 Silver linings	1.67 (1.12)	0 - 4	−.05	−.04	.16
5. Problem-focused coping	2.77 (.84)	1–4.83	.06	.07	.07	.30***
6. Familism	3.69 (.69)	2.06 - 5	−17*	−.24**	.09	.10	.16
7. Family Resilience	3.27 (.66)	1 - 4	−.23**	−.21*	.09	.31***	.25**	.51***
8. Age	16.00 (1.27)	13 - 18	.09	.14	.12	.10	.25**	−.20*	−.11
9. Male Gender	61% female	N/A	−.18*	−.20*	−.13	−.09	−.06	.32***	−.01	−.28***
10. T2 Depressive Symptoms	2.22 (1.03)	1 - 5	.58***	.54***	.12	−.15	.09	−.09	−.09	.13	−.16
11. T2 Anxiety Symptoms	2.24 (1.03)	1 - 5	.62***	.67***	.14	−.11	.02	−.24*	−.19	.14	−.26*	.83***

Note: ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.

T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2, PF Engagement = Problem-Focused Engagement Coping.

Hypotheses 2 and 3: Regression Analyses

In terms of Hypothesis 2 regarding stressors and silver linings, our results partially supported our hypotheses (See Table 3). Contrary to our expectations, silver linings were not associated with fewer depressive or anxiety symptoms at T1. COVID-19 stress was associated with more symptoms, at T1, but this was dependent on problem-solving coping. For both depressive and anxiety symptoms, there were significant interactions between COVID-19 stress and problem-focused coping. We plotted the simple slopes at one standard deviation above and below the mean of problem-focused coping. COVID-19 stress was related to higher levels of depressive symptoms only for youth who engaged in low (β = .38, p < .001) and medium (β = .19, p = .004) levels of problem-focused coping but not at high levels of problem-focused coping (β = .00, p = .98). Similar positive associations were found between COVID-19 stress and anxiety symptoms at low (β = .38, p = .001) and medium (β = .22, p = .011) levels of problem-focused coping, but not high levels (β = .065, p = .559). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported for problem-solving coping as a moderator. In terms of familial processes, higher levels of family resilience were significantly associated with lower depressive symptoms (β = −.28, p = .004), but not anxiety symptoms. Although familism was correlated with fewer symptoms at the bivariate level, it was not significantly related to symptoms once including the other predictors. Because interactions terms for familism or family resilience were not significant, these were trimmed from the model.

Table 3. Regression analyses predicting mental health symptoms.

	T1 Depressive Symptoms		T1 Anxiety Symptoms
	β	p-value	β	p-value
T1 Familism	−.01	.924	−.12	.231
T1 Family res	−.28	.004	−.18	.070
T1 PF coping	.11	.221	.11	.220
T1 C19 stress	.18	.027	.21	.010
T1 C19 silver linings	−.06	.525	−.06	.507
T1 PF coping*C19 stress	−.20	.005	−.16	.048
Male gender	−.18	.039	−.15	.094
Age	.01	.909	.03	.734
	T2 Depressive Symptoms		T2 Anxiety Symptoms
	β	p-value	β	p-value
T1 Symptomatology	.59	.000	.68	.000
T1 Familism	−.08	.499	−.06	.573
T1 Family res	.19	.107	.09	.420
T1 PF coping	−.04	.703	−.07	.420
T1 C19 stress	.03	.739	.05	.554
T1 C19 silver linings	−.18	.052	−.14	.078
T1 PF coping*C19 stress	−.20	.041	−.10	.287
Male gender	.03	.774	−.06	.456
Age	.03	.741	.00	.973

Note: Significant values are bolded. PF Coping = Problem-focused coping, C19 stress = COVID-19 stress, C19 silver linings = COVID-19 silver linings, Family res = Family resilience; T1 Symptomatology = refers to the same set of symptoms in the model at T1.

For longitudinal models, autoregressive effects were significant for both depressive (β = .57, p < .001) and anxiety symptoms (β = .68, p < .001). In terms of Hypothesis 2, T1 COVID-19 silver linings demonstrated trend-level effects for lowering depressive (β = −.18, p = .052) and anxiety symptoms (β = −.14, p = .078), but COVID-19 stress was not a significant predictor with the exception of an interaction with problem-solving coping for T2 depressive symptoms (β = −.20, p < .041). We again plotted the interaction using simple slopes. However, none of the simple slopes were significant at ±1 standard deviations from the mean of COVID-19 stress. Consequently, to determine at which point there is a relation between COVID-related stress and depressive symptoms at T2, we used the Johnson-Neyman method to plot the interaction across the full-range of the observed data of the moderator problem-focused coping (See Figure 1). Probing regions of significance revealed that the adjusted association of COVID-related stress on depressive symptoms at T2 was positive and significant only for those who reported −1.5 SDs below the mean of problem-focused coping. In other words, the positive relation between COVID-19 stress and depressive symptoms 6 months later is only significant for individuals who engaged in very low levels of problem-focused engagement coping at T1. Otherwise, there was no relation between COVID-19 stress and later depressive symptoms. In terms of Hypothesis 3, neither familism nor family resilience was associated with changes in symptoms six months later.

Figure 1. Moderated Effect of Problem-Focused Coping and COVID-19 Stress on Depressive Symptoms at Time 2.

Note: The plot contains the full range of available data and accounts for all variables in the model. The adjusted association of COVID-19 stress on T2 Depressive symptoms is significantly positive at a Problem-Focused Coping (centered) value of -1.5 and below.

Discussion

There is currently a mental health crisis for Latinx youth. Even more than two years after the onset of the pandemic, Latinx youth were experiencing significant depressive and anxiety symptoms with 38.0% of the current sample reporting moderate to severe anxiety symptoms and 45.6% reporting moderate to severe depressive symptoms in our Time 2 data collection (collected from May 2021 to April 2022). This suggests that, unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic likely exacerbated the mental health risks already present for Latinx youth, but at the same time, some Latinx youth were partially spared the mental health costs of the pandemic. On the whole, our first hypothesis was supported whereby we documented that Latinx youth reported both COVID-19 stressors and silver linings as well as high rates of distress. Yet, in terms of our second hypothesis, the damaging effects of stressors outweighed the benefits gleaned from silver linings. Regarding resilience processes, these were mostly concurrent in nature. Familial resilience was associated with fewer depressive symptoms independent of COVID-19 stress suggesting that viewing one’s family as capable of dealing with stress provides some psychological gain for all youth. For problem-solving coping, Latinx youth who engaged in greater problem-focused coping reported fewer symptoms when faced with higher levels of COVID-19 stress. Both findings are consistent with our third hypothesis such that cultural processes embedded in familial resilience coalesce with coping to offer protection, but these may not carry long-term benefits. Indeed, there were fewer longitudinal effects evident in our analyses with only problem-solving coping serving to protect youth against increases in depressive symptoms.

COVID-19 Stress and Silver Linings

The first aim of our paper was to understand both COVID-19 stress and silver linings for Latinx youth. Similar to work done in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic onset (e.g., Penner et al., 2021; Roche et al., 2022), youth reported multiple COVID-19 stressors, ranging from fears of the illness, disruptions to school and social life, and familial stress – although our percentages were higher than other studies likely due to the length of our study period where there were greater opportunities to experience stressors. In our sample, more than half of the Latinx youth took on greater family responsibilities (relative to 35% in Roche et al.’s, 2022 sample), but importantly, this was rated as the least stressful relative to worries about the end of the pandemic and illness, disruptions to social life, and canceling important plans. Compared to prior work that only documented the stressor’s presence (e.g., Roche et al., 2022), our study allowed for richer measurement of COVID-19 stressors by including the perceived stressfulness of the stressor. This sheds light on how familial resilience processes may still be at play such that familial responsibilities (consistent with familism values) were not viewed as stressful as were other more uncontrollable aspects of the pandemic (e.g., when it would end, having to cancel important events) or dealing COVID-19’s ramifications on school and peer contexts (e.g., difficulty completing school online, unable to participate in social activities). This finding is consistent with work with adults from low-income minoritized communities, where they reported greater financial and job stress relative to White families, but significantly less stress around family routines and structure in the home (Chen et al., 2021). Further, as adolescents gain cognitive maturity and future orientation, these worries about the end of the pandemic might be more relevant, as well as concerns about contexts outside of the family where they have started to have more autonomy and obtain social reinforcement. Not surprisingly, and consistent with our Hypotheses 2 and 3, the perceived stressfulness of COVID-19 was related to concurrent symptoms of depression and anxiety and predicted worse subsequent depressive symptoms for youth with lower levels of problem-focused coping.

Our study was the first to our knowledge to examine the perceived pleasantness of multiple COVID-19 silver linings in Latinx youth. Previous studies suggested that Latinx youth reported familial silver linings like getting along better with siblings and spending time with family (e.g., Penner et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2021), but our study extends this work by also documenting that youth found more time for hobbies, exercise, and helping other people. Furthermore, the pleasantness of COVID-19 silver linings was associated with familial resilience, supporting the theoretical notion that familial resilience processes strengthen coping in the face of pandemic stress (Prime et al., 2020). In fact, the two events that Latinx youth reported the highest degree of pleasantness were family-oriented: getting along better with siblings and spending more time with family members. Although qualitative studies with Latinx youth during the pandemic highlighted the positive impact on mental health of these silver linings (e.g., Cortés-García et al., 2022), these were not related to fewer symptoms in our study. Together, these results indicate that for the most part, COVID-19 stress may be more situationally related to symptoms, and that familial resilience may have supported youth to experience more pleasantness from COVID-19 silver linings, including time with family.

Familism Values, Familial Resilience, and Coping

Another main purpose of this paper was to test whether familism and familial resilience mitigated the impact of COVID-19 stress on mental health functioning as this had not been explicitly tested in prior literature. Latinx youth in our sample felt their families were indeed resilient and also endorsed high levels of familism values, underscoring the importance of considering culturally-embedded resilience processes. First, as would be suggested by past work (e.g., Ramos et al., 2021) and theory (Walsh, 2003, 2016), familism values were significantly correlated with greater familial resilience. This is an important finding as it suggests another familial mediating pathway, beyond the receipt of social support (Campos et al., 2014), that can explain the promotive effects of familism values on mental health. Family resilience may also be most relevant in the face of shared uncontrollable stressors where families are able to respond together, share resources, and support one another. This extends work by Volpert-Esmond et al. (2022) in which familism values were associated with better family functioning by showing that these values also support the sense of familial strength when confronting seemingly insurmountable stressors. Future work should continue to test both the psychological sense of familial security, strength, and optimism that familism values may facilitate, and if, in fact, these are further strengthened in times of stress as familial bonds become stronger through shared efficacy and coping as proposed by Prime et al. (2020).

Second, although both familism values and familial resilience were correlated with fewer mental health symptoms, when considered in the same model, familial resilience was associated with fewer depressive symptoms. This partially supports our Hypothesis 3 such that familial resilience was promotive, but only for concurrent symptoms as it did not predict fewer symptoms overtime. As argued by Prime et al. (2020), family resilience is critical to understanding how youth fared in the pandemic and, for depressive symptoms, its promotive effect was almost twice that of the negative impact of COVID-19 stress. Notably, COVID-19 uncertainty was one of the most endorsed stressfulness items, and familial resilience would be the perfect antidote as it is centered on the belief that one’s family is capable of overcoming – no matter what type of stress may lie ahead. Given that our sample includes primarily immigrant families, familial resilience has likely been built slowly as families have forged a path in a new (and at times hostile) country through overcoming multiple obstacles, navigating oppressive systems, succeeding in work and school, and building a shared life.

Contrary to our prediction and what is suggested by Prime et al. (2020), familial resilience was protective at all levels of stress, suggesting that for Latinx youth this promotive effect is equally impactful for all youth. This is different from the findings that familial resilience predicted fewer depressive symptoms only at high levels of discrimination in Latinx youth (Ramos et al., 2021). These results could differ for two important reasons. The Ramos et al. study had been collected prior to the pandemic, and it may be that in our current study during the pandemic, familial resilience was equally beneficial for all youth because families were experiencing multiple stressors that even “low levels” of stress were indeed high. Alternately, the measure used in the Ramos et al. study was more individually-focused (e.g., My family stands by me in during difficult times) as opposed to our measure which was more family-focused (e.g., We feel we are strong in facing big problems). Thus, future work should examine different types of familial resilience processes and test whether the protective effects are dependent on a stressor (e.g., individual vs. familial) and collective sense of support vs. an individual sense of support. Ultimately, the fact that familial resilience emerged as predictive when including familism values in the model lends some support to the notion that it can also not only be a moderator in times of stress, but also a mediator of the relation between familism and mental health outcomes, pointing to another important avenue for future research.

Our findings stand in contrast with the only study of familism values and mental health in an international Latinx college sample that found that familism values were associated with more post-traumatic stress (Torres et al., 2022). Potentially, familism values may be differentially related to mental health in college students as students had to navigate the intersection of college-stress, COVID-19 stress, and familial obligations. How familism and familial resilience processes operate across distinct developmental stages still needs additional work as the college-age has been one where familism obligations could increase stress (e.g., Sy, 2006) as well as be connected to pride and well-being (Covarrubias et al., 2019). More work is needed to tease out when familism and obligations translate to a sense of familial resilience supporting mental health.

Finally, neither familial resilience nor familism values resulted in fewer symptoms 6-months later in the regression models. Familial resilience may need to be continually cultivated, tended, and fostered as families face additional stress, and as the pandemic continued to challenge the coping resources of families, those who were able to persist in their optimism, support, and strength as a family unit may have continued to demonstrate this resilience. Potentially, familial resilience has the most impact on concurrent mental health as it supports a sense of connection and belonging. Overall, more work needs to better delineate how familial values and familism resilience operate across time with additional attention to the emotional underpinnings of familism and familial resilience.

Problem-Engaged Coping and COVID-19 Stress

Consistent with past work (Hussong et al., 2021) and our Hypothesis 3, problem-solving coping emerged to buffer youth experiencing COVID-19 stress. Specifically, COVID-19 stress was related to higher levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms for youth who used low and mean levels of problem-solving coping in response to COVID-19 stressors. For those who engaged in high levels of problem-solving coping, COVID-19 stress was not related to mental health symptomatology. Moreover, COVID-19 stress at T1 was only related to depressive symptoms six months later for individuals who engaged in very low levels of problem-focused coping. This is consistent with most past work on coping during COVID-19 reviewed above that suggests that – despite COVID-19 being an uncontrollable stressor – youth benefited from actively planning and cognitively shifting from the stressors associated with COVID-19. Because COVID-19 resulted in so many disruptions (e.g., school closures, increased childcare, health), it likely means that a combination of engaged coping was useful as some of these stressors may have benefited from direct problem-solving (e.g., getting school assignments completed online; connecting with teachers to get support when they have missed assignments) while other aspects of COVID-19 stress may have been better suited to cognitive reappraisal (e.g., missing graduation, uncertainty of length of COVID-19 pandemic). Some past work does suggest that different types of COVID-19 stress (e.g., health vs. economic) were differentially responsive to familial and individual coping processes (Wang et al., 2021). However, our work suggests that potentially both primary and secondary control coping served to mitigate the stressfulness of COVID-19. Future work should continue to disentangle different types of COVID-19 stressors and coping responses to clarify more fully the buffering effects of coping in the pandemic for youth – especially teasing out the relative benefit of primary vs. secondary control coping.

Critically, both familism values and familial resilience were also correlated to problem-focused coping, supporting the idea that coping processes for Latinx youth coalesce with family resilience. This suggests that these planful coping strategies, seeking silver linings, and focusing on what was important during the pandemic may have emanated from familial coping as proposed by Prime et al. (2020). The role of familism and familial resilience in supporting the emerging coping of Latinx youth is a burgeoning area of research, whereby family coping and family problem-solving predict better youth mental health (e.g., Santiago & Wadsworth, 2011; Santiago et al., 2020). Furthermore, this effect might be strongest when families endorse high levels of familism (Santiago & Wadsworth, 2011, but see Santiago et al., 2020 for slightly different findings). Future work might also examine how these individual and familial coping processes cluster together via person-centered approaches to understand the joint impact of individual and familial level coping.

Strengths and Limitations

Even though our study contributes to our understanding of familial resilience and coping in the pandemic and is one of the first to test the Prime et al. (2020) model, we were limited from a small sample size that may have underpowered our results. For example, there were a few trend-level effects that point to familial resilience and COVID-19 silver linings as important to study in larger samples. Experiencing more pleasant COVID-19 silver linings led to a trend-level long-term effect resulting in fewer increases in both depressive and anxiety symptoms, and this suggests that future work should consider the positive emotional underpinnings of familial cohesion and benefit finding as supporting mental health for Latinx populations. Further, two time points precluded tests of mediation that might be interesting to pursue, including how familism and familial resilience support coping. Due to our sample size, we were also not able to test how familial resilience and problem-solving coping jointly impacted the response to COVID-19 stress in a 3-way interaction that would provide the strongest test of how these types of resilience processes operate in tandem. Our study did not include other cultural processes that may be important to consider like collectivistic values, time in the U.S., and acculturation nor were we able to get pre-pandemic functioning. Further, we were hampered in fully understanding familial processes by only collecting data on familial resilience from youth and using self-report as opposed to observational coding of family coping (e.g., see Santiago et al., 2020 for an observational study of these effects). We also collected data across more than one year which does not allow us to fully understand the effects of these resilience processes during specific phases of the pandemic (e.g., immediate aftermath in the lockdown; school closures). Finally, we also recruited participants in public indoor and outdoor events, and our sample may be biased to families who were less isolated and perhaps experienced less COVID-19 stress.

Despite these limitations, our study highlights that adaptive culturally-embedded coping processes in Latinx families benefit youth with a deeper examination of familial resilience processes as suggested by the Integrative Model (Coll et al., 1996). We have found important avenues for future research on mental health in Latinx youth including considering the intersection of familial and individual resilience in times of stress. Our findings suggest that familism, familial resilience, and problem-solving coping may support benefit finding and lead to positive affect – something that has been missing from the familism literature.

Policy and Clinical Implications

In North Carolina, there was considerable community advocacy for Latinx populations leading to a deployment of community health workers to increase vaccinations and leadership across the state around disparities facing the community (see Martinez-Bianchi et al., 2021). In fact, there are currently no disparities in vaccination rates for Latinx relative to Whites in the state. This collective community response may have facilitated coping, but even with these resources, Latinx families were hit hard as seen in the high clinical symptoms in the sample. Clinically, therapists should endeavor to understand the familial adaptive history, including meaning making processes about survival, strength, and how families superando juntos (overcome together) (Falicov, 2014). Therapists need to equally consider individual and familial coping patterns. Familial reframing and meaning making in times of stress can facilitate problem-solving coping, and familism can also serve to foment positive affect and happiness when youth turn to their families in times of stress. Behavioral activation may be particularly useful when incorporating the family to potentially lead to more positive affect and connection. Helping families share stories of their collective resilience, not only presently but historically, can support the adaptation of Latinx youth and their parents, and should be a focus of interventions that aim to further strengthen Latinx families (see Chavez-Dueñas et al., 2019; Falicov, 2014 for more). Policy implications include a focus on family-level interventions to support familial well-being in schools and through community-based organizations that can help families learn coping strategies for facing distress together. Given the high rates of mental distress, there is a large need to continue to address mental health services disparities for Latinx youth and their families.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental material for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2022.2158838.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

Notes

¹ We use the term Latinx to be inclusive of all forms of gender expression, including in our own sample. We acknowledge that there are other terms used to describe the community including Latine.

This article is part of the special issue “Understanding the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Mental Health of Latinx Children, Youth, and Families: Clinical Challenges and Opportunities” edited by José M. Causadias and Enrique W. Neblett, Jr.