Latina/o Youths’ Discrimination Experiences in the U.S. Southwest: Estimates from Three Studies

Abstract

Despite growing awareness of the negative effects of ethnic-racial discrimination, we know little about the frequency of these experiences among Latina/o youth. Utilizing three independent studies, we examined estimates of general discrimination and police discrimination among Latino/a youth living in the U.S. Southwest (total N = 1,066; ages 12 to 21 years old). Ethnic-racial discrimination experiences differed by adolescent gender; for girls, 47% reported discrimination at age 12; highest estimates were at age 17 (70%) and 18 years old (68%). Boys reported greater general discrimination than girls during early and late adolescence; the highest estimates were observed at ages 19, 20, and 21 years (94%, 86%, and 87% respectively). Gender differences also emerged with police discrimination; boys reported being hassled by a police officer more often than girls at every age. Findings suggest that most Latino/a adolescents experience discrimination, and Latino/a boys are particularly vulnerable.

Ethnic-racial (E-R) discrimination is a salient and costly experience to E-R minority individuals in the U.S. Indeed, 30% to 60% of E-R minority adults report experiencing E-R discrimination (Kessler, Mickelson, & Williams, 1999; Pérez, Fortuna, & Alegría, 2008) and E-R discrimination is consistently associated with poorer mental and physical health (Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009). There is an urgent need to focus on experiences of E-R discrimination during adolescence because preliminary work suggests that E-R discrimination increases during this time (Umaña-Taylor, 2016), and that such experiences in adolescence (relative to young adulthood) are more harmful for long-term health (Adams et al., 2015). Currently, we lack a clear understanding of how common general experiences of discrimination are among Latino/a youth, the largest E-R minority group in the U.S. (U.S. Census, 2010). Utilizing data from three studies, we present estimates of E-R general and police discrimination among Latino/a youth, aged 12 to 21 years, with attention to variability by gender and generational status. Estimates come from Latino/a youth living in the Southwest—a region of the U.S. where immigration has increasingly become a contentious issue, and where anti-immigrant legislation (Pew Hispanic Center, 2010) and increased worries of discrimination have emerged (Santos & Menjiar, 2013). A special focus on police discrimination is particularly needed given the growing awareness of hostile interactions between ethnic-racial minority individuals and law enforcement (Sugie & Turney, 2017; Dukes & Kahn, 2017) and growing worry and fear of immigration enforcement (Sun & Wu, 2018). By providing estimates of Latino/a youth, and focusing on both general experiences and police interactions, we fill a critical void in the literature that identifies the salience of discrimination in the lives of many youth living in a context in which these events may be particularly relevant and influential to their development.

Many theoretical frameworks of E-R minority youths’ development have posited the importance of discrimination-related experiences in development. For instance, García Coll and colleagues’ integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children (1996) posits that experiences of discrimination, both overt and subtle, are far reaching—inhibiting youths’ development within neighborhoods, schools, and health care settings. Discrimination experiences shape cultural processes, as youth and families navigate current contextual demands and find ways to cope with (and thrive despite) these experiences. Similarly, the Phenomenological Variant of Ecological Systems theory emphasizes the role of bias and stereotypes in E-R minority youths’ development of identity (Spencer, 1995). Specifically, the theory posits that individuals’ meaning making and subjective appraisals are intrinsically linked to larger societal bias and stereotypes. Thus, for E-R minority youth, identity development may be an adaptive coping response to contextual risk factors that include E-R bias. Together, these frameworks emphasize the necessity and importance of understanding discrimination experiences in E-R minority youth. Without this consideration, developmental science provides an inaccurate view of the lived experiences of Latino/a youth.

Most discrimination research has focused on African American youth, and estimates suggest that E-R discrimination experiences are common. For instance, among African American youth aged 13 to 19 years old (mean age 16 years old), 77% of youth reported at least one discriminatory experience in the past 3 months (Prelow, Danoff-Burg, Swenson, & Pulgiano, 2004). Similarly, among African Americans aged 13 to 17 years old (mean age 15 years old), approximately 87% of youth reported at least one experience of discrimination in the past year (Seaton, Caldwell, Sellers, & Jackson, 2008).

As for Latino/a youth, few studies exist that provide estimates of discrimination experiences; studies that do provide estimates often do not systematically examine E-R discrimination at specific ages, nor focus on specific types of discrimination (Umaña-Taylor, 2016). In our review of 70 studies conducted between 2015 and 2017 that examined Latino/a youth, only approximately 10% reported the percentage of youth who had experienced E-R discrimination, and none reported on police discrimination. Estimates of general discrimination within these studies varied by age. For instance, in a study of primarily Mexican-origin 10 to 11-year-old adolescents, 59% had perceived E-R discrimination (Kulis, Marsiglia, & Nieri 2009). In a study of primarily Mexican-origin 16-year olds, 74% reported that they believed that most people looked down on (or had negative views of) Latinos (Gómez et al., 2014). In a slightly older sample of Mexican-origin youth (M_age = 18.8 years, Range = 16 to 20 years), 94% of youth reported at least one lifetime experience of E-R discrimination (Flores, Tschann, Dimas, Pasch, & de Groat, 2010). Although these few studies suggest that experiences of E-R discrimination may be more common among older, relative to younger, adolescents, it is difficult to ascertain given that most studies reporting estimates combine across school grades or ages (e.g., Gómez, et al., 2014; Szalacha, Erkut, Coll, Alarcón, Fields, & Ceder, 2003). There is limited longitudinal research that does suggest that Latino/a youth report increases in discrimination during high school (Benner & Graham, 2011; White et al., 2014), but estimates after high school are not available.

In addition to variation by age, findings suggest that experiences of E-R discrimination may be different by gender, and to a lesser degree, by youth nativity (i.e., U.S.- born versus foreign-born) or generational status. For instance, in a study of mostly Mexican-origin youth (M_age = 14), boys reported more general E-R discrimination, on average, than girls (Gonzalez, Stein, Kiang, & Cupito, 2014). Similar differences have been found among Latino/a young adults (López-Cevallos, Harvey, & Warren, 2014). Given prior work suggesting that boys may have greater exposure to discrimination because of traditional gendered expectations that allow for more frequent and earlier involvement of boys, relative to girls, in contexts outside the home (Zeiders, Derlan, & Umaña-Taylor, 2013), gender differences may be more evident at earlier developmental periods. Related to police discrimination specifically, prior work with African Americans suggest that boys are disproportionately stopped and questioned by police officers (e.g., Berkel et al., 2009). Thus, we also may expect Latino boys to report greater experiences of police discrimination.

As for nativity, one study of 11- to 15-year olds (Edwards & Romero, 2008) and a second study of 11- to 19-year olds (Smokowski & Bacallao, 2006) found that foreign-born Latino youth reported more E-R discrimination than U.S.-born Latino youth. Other studies, however, have found no differences by nativity (Gonzalez et al., 2014). With regard to generational status, studies suggest that earlier generation youth report more discrimination than later generation youth. For instance, immigrant Mexican-origin youth reported greater levels of discrimination than 4^th generation youth (youth born in the U.S., along with parents and grandparents; Edwards & Romero, 2008). In another study, 2^nd generation Latino youth (U.S.-born youth with foreign-born parents) reported greater levels of discrimination than 3^rd generation Latino youth (U.S.-born youth and parents; Sirin et al., 2015). Although U.S.-born or later generation youth may be more aware of social norms regarding race and ethnicity, which may make them more aware of ethnic-racial discrimination, foreign-born youth may experience more blatant and overt E-R discrimination, given their potential English language difficulties and less assimilated behavior patterns.

The current study analyzed three independent datasets of Latino/a youth living in the Southwest to examine estimates of E-R general discrimination and police discrimination in the past year. We examined estimates at ages 12 to 21 years old and examined differences by youth gender and generational status. Based on prior research, we expected estimates of E-R discrimination to be highest for youth in middle and late adolescence, and for boys to have significantly higher estimates than girls. No hypotheses were made for generational status because prior studies have reported somewhat inconsistent findings.

Method

Data for the study came from three research projects focused on Latinos living in the U.S. Southwest: Identity, Juntos, and Supporting MAMI (Mexican-origin Adolescent Mothers and their Infants). Below we provide a description of each project’s procedure, sample, and measures. For Juntos and Supporting MAMI projects, data were gathered in English or Spanish, based on participant preference; all measures were translated and back-translated (Knight, Roosa, & Umaña-Taylor, 2009).

Identity Project.

This project is a cross-sectional study of 1,552 adolescents in a Southwestern metropolitan high school conducted in 2014 (Author Citation). All students enrolled in a social studies or physical education class were eligible to participate. Participants who provided parental consent and youth assent completed a survey during class, which took 45 minutes to complete. For the current study, only those who identified as Hispanic/Latino were included in analyses (N = 370, M_age= 16.14, SD=1.1, range 14–18, 54.3% female). Approximately 7% of youth reported being foreign born (80% of foreign-born youth were born in Mexico); 43% of youth were first generation (born in the U.S., but at least one foreign-born parent), and 50% of youth were second generation (adolescent and parents born in the U.S.). The majority of participants (76.8%) reported that mothers’ highest education was a high school degree/GED or higher. Adolescents received a pair of sunglasses for their participation.

Adolescents completed an adapted version of the Adolescent Discrimination Distress Index (ADDI; Fisher, Wallace SA, Fenton, 2000), which includes three subscales: (a) peer discrimination (5 items; e.g., “Others your age did not include you in their activities because of your ethnicity/race”), (b) adults inside school (4 items; e.g., “You were wrongly disciplined or given after-school detention because of your ethnicity/race”), and (c) adults outside of school (6 items; e.g., “You were hassled by police because of your ethnicity/race”). Items were rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (more than 10 times); higher scores indicated more frequent E-R discrimination experiences. Cronbach’s alpha for the 15-item scale was .88.

Juntos Project.

This project is a longitudinal study of 246 Mexican-origin families recruited from a Southwestern metropolitan area (Author Citation). To be eligible, participating families needed to have a 7th grader and at least one older sibling living in the home. The longitudinal study has four time points, starting in 2002 and ending in 2010. Wave 1 (W1) data collection occurred via home interviews lasting about two hours when younger siblings were in seventh grade (M_age=12.55, SD=.60, range = 11 to 15) and older siblings averaged 15.49 years old (SD= 1.57, range = 13 to 21). Wave 2 (W2), Wave 3 (W3), and Wave 4 (W4) occurred approximately 2, 5, and 7 years after the initial assessment. At W2, W3 and W4, 91% (N = 223), 75% (N = 185), and 70% (N = 173) of the original 246 families participated, respectively. Younger and older siblings’ reports for W1, W3, and W4 were used in the current study, as E-R discrimination was not collected at W2. Youth were equally split on gender (50.4% female). Approximately 42.2% of adolescents were born in Mexico; 33.1% were 1^st generation (born in the U.S. with at least one foreign-born parent), and 24.7% were 2^nd generation (adolescent and parents born in the U.S.). The median family income at W1 was $41,000 (SD= $45,222) and 48% of mothers reported a high school/GED education or greater. Participating families received a $100 (W1) and $125 honorarium (W3). At W4, adolescents received payments of $75.

At W1, adolescents’ E-R discrimination experiences were assessed with 9 items from three existing scales (Hughes & Dodge, 1997; Klonoff & Landrine, 1996; Landrine & Klonoff, 1996). The items asked adolescents to rate how often experiences of E-R discrimination happened in the past 12 months from three groups; (a) peers (e.g., How often have kids at school called you names because you are Mexican or Mexican-American?), (b) teachers (e.g., How often have your teachers assumed that you aren’t as smart or won’t be as good in school as White kids because you are Mexican or Mexican American?) and (c) in the neighborhood (e.g., How often have people in your neighborhood excluded you from activities, like not inviting you to their houses, or not letting you join their games, because you are Mexican or Mexican American?). Items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (often). Cronbach’s alpha at W1 was .88 for younger siblings, and .90 for older siblings. At W3 and W4, adolescents’ E-R discrimination experiences were assessed using the Perceived Discrimination Scale (Whitbeck, Hoyt, McMorris, Chen & Stubben, 2001). This scale assesses the degree to which participants perceived to have experienced E-R discrimination in the past 12 months with three subscales: (a) global discrimination (5 items; e.g., “How often has someone yelled racial slurs or racial insults at you?”), (b) authority discrimination (3 items, e.g., “How often has the police hassled you because you are Hispanic/Latino?”), and (c) school discrimination (2 items, e.g., “How often have you encountered teachers who didn’t expect you to do well because you are Hispanic/Latino?”). Items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 4 (very often); higher scores indicated more frequent perceived E-R discrimination. Cronbach’s alphas for the scale score were .90 and .90 for younger and older siblings at T3, and .79 and .84 at T4, respectively.

MAMI Project.

This project is a longitudinal study of 204 Mexican-origin adolescent mothers in a Southwestern metropolitan area (Author Citation). Initial data (W1) were collected in 2006 via home interviews that lasted approximately three hours. W1 data collection occurred when adolescents were in their third trimester of pregnancy (M_age=16.24, SD=1.00, range= 15–19) and at five additional time points each spaced a year apart (W2 – W6). At W2, W3, W4, W5, and W6, 96% (N = 195), 85% (N = 173), 84% (N = 171), 85% (N = 173), and 84% (N = 171) of the original 204 adolescents participated, respectively. Nearly 36% of youth were foreign-born; 42.6 % of youth were 1^st generation (born in the U.S. with at least one foreign-born parent), and 21.6% were 2^nd generation (adolescent and parents born in the U.S.). The average family income was $27,324 (SD = 19,893) at W1 and 31.8% of mothers (of the adolescent mother) reported a high school/GED education or greater. Participant incentives were $25, $30, $35, $40, $50, and $60 at W1 to W6, respectively.

Across W1 to W6, adolescents’ E-R discrimination experiences were assessed with the Perceived Discrimination Scale (Whitbeck et al., 2001; described above). Cronbach’s alphas for the 10-item scale were 80, .88, .91, .84, .89, and.83 across W1 to W6, respectively.

Differences Across Samples.

Table 1 presents demographic characteristics for each of the three samples: gender, generational status, and parental education. As expected, the samples differed by gender, χ²(4) = 164.08, p < .001; MAMI had significantly more female participants than the other two samples; however, the Juntos and Identity projects’ gender composition did not differ. The samples also differed on generational status, χ²(4) = 154.81, p < .001; the Identity project had significantly less foreign-born youth and more 2^nd generation youth than the Juntos, χ²(2) = 142.20, p < .001, or MAMI project, χ²(2) = 91.55, p < .001. The Juntos and MAMI project samples did not differ in generational status. As for maternal education, the Identity project had a higher percentage of mothers with a high school degree/GED or greater (78%), as compared to the Juntos project (48%; χ²(2) = 63.49, p < .001) and the MAMI project (32%; χ²(2) = 122.38, p < .001). The Juntos project had a higher percentage of mothers with high school degree/GED or greater compared to the MAMI Project, χ²(2) = 11.92, p < .001

Table 1.

Differences across Samples in Demographic Variables

	Identity	Juntos	MAMI	χ2 Statistic
% female	54.3% a	50.4% a	100% b	χ2(2) = 136.09, p < .001
Foreign born	6.8% a	42.2% b	35.8% b	χ2(2) = 136.09, p < .001
1st Generation	43.2% a	33.1% b	42.6% b	χ2(2) = 11.12, p < .01
2nd Generation	50.0% a	24.7% b	21.6% b	χ2(2) = 75.83, p < .001
% of parents with high school degree/GED or greater	76.8% a	48.0% b	31.8% c	χ2(2) = 132.12, p < .001

Note. Percentages that do not share the same subscript are significantly different from one another, p < .05

Results

We first computed whether or not an individual reported any instance of E-R discrimination at a particular wave by coding E-R discrimination items with a response of never or almost never as 0, and all other responses as 1. A sum score represented a count of the number of experiences of E-R discrimination; sum scores were then dichotomized into either 0 (adolescent reported no experiences of discrimination) or 1 (adolescent reported at least one experience of discrimination). Such an approach was taken given the differing Likert responses across studies. Table 2 presents each project’s overall sample size at each specific age, and the number of individuals within each age group who reported at least one E-R discrimination experience. Using these numbers, estimates for each sample at each specific age were calculated. Specifically, we computed an adjusted average by dividing the total number of individuals who reported E-R discrimination at each age, by the total number of individuals at each age (e.g., at age 15, 125/210). Figure 1a presents the overall average rates at each age (12 to 21 years). At ages 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, 56%, 62%, 56%, 60% and 58% of adolescents reported at least one experience of E-R discrimination in the past 12 months; at age 17 and 18 years old, 69% of youth reported at least on experience of discrimination. Rates were slightly lower at ages 19, 20, and 21, although still relatively high (66%, 61%, 61%, respectively).

Table 2.

Estimates of General Discrimination from ages 12 to 21 years by Count, Percentage, and Project.

	Age
	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21
Project Overall Sample size (N)
Identity (ADDl; 15 items; Fisher et al.)	--	--	66	90	122	68	18	--	--	--
Juntos (Hughes Scale; 9 items; Hughes et al.)	120	131	69	64	49	31	19	4	4	1
Juntos (PDS; 10 items; Whitbeck et al.)	--	--	--	--	--	56	100	32	41	28
MAMI (PDS; 10 items; Whitbeck et al.)	--	--	--	56	105	157	160	160	148	130
Total N	120	131	135	210	276	312	297	196	193	159
Individuals Reporting Discrimination (n)
Identity (ADDl; 12 items; Fisher et al.)	--	--	34	38	51	35	6	--	--	--
Juntos (Hughes Scale; 9 items; Hughes et al.)	67	81	42	44	38	21	13	4	2	1
Juntos (PDS; 10 items; Whitbeck et al.)	--	--	--	--	--	44	76	26	31	20
MAMI (PDS; 10 items; Whitbeck et al.)	--	--	--	43	71	114	110	99	84	76
Total N reporting discrimination (across samples)	67	81	76	125	160	214	205	129	117	97
Individuals Reporting Discrimination (%)
Identity (ADDl; 12 items; Fisher et al.)	--	--	52%	42%	42%	51%	33%	--	--	--
Juntos (Hughes Scale; 9 items; Hughes et al.)	56%	62%	61%	69%	78%	68%	68%	100%	50%	100%
Juntos (PDS; 10 items; Whitbeck et al.)	--	--	--	--	--	79%	76%	81%	76%	71%
MAMI (PDS; 10 items; Whitbeck et al.)	--	--	--	77%	68%	73%	69%	62%	57%	58%
Adjusted Overall Average % +	56%	62%	56%	60%	58%	69%	69%	66%	61%	61%

Note. ADDI = Adolescent Discrimination Distress Index, PDS = Perceived Discrimination Scale.

⁺Percentage calculated by dividing n reporting discrimination by Total N.

Figure 1. Latino/a adolescents’ overall estimates of general discrimination from ages 12 to 21 years by (1a) age, (1b) gender, and (1c) generational status.

Percentages are significantly different between groups, * p < .05, ** p < .01.

Figure 1b presents the rates by adolescent gender. A comparison of rates based on a chi-squared test comparing proportions indicated that a higher percentage of boys, relative to girls, reported at least one E-R discrimination experience in the past year at age 13 (χ² (1) = 6.43, p < .05), and in late adolescence (i.e., 19 (χ² (1) = 6.63, p < .05), 20 (χ² (1) = 6.22, p < .05), and 21 (χ² (1) = 4.58, p < .05) years). The highest rates for boys were at ages 19, 20, and 21, with 94%, 86%, and 87% of boys, respectively, reporting at least one experience of E-R discrimination. For girls, the highest rates were at ages 17 and 18 years, with 70% and 68% of girls, respectively, reporting an experience of E-R discrimination. Figure 1c presents E-R discrimination rates by adolescent generational status. Statistically significant differences based on a chi-squared test comparing proportions were found only at age 17 (χ² (2) = 5.99, p < .05); a greater percentage of 1st generation adolescents experienced E-R discrimination (73%) as compared to their 2^nd generation counterparts (57%).

For police discrimination, we examined a single-item across all three samples “How often has the police hassled you because you are Hispanic/Latino?” We examined ages 14 to 21, as data were not available for ages 12 and 13 years old. Across the samples (Table 3; Figure 2a – 2c), police discrimination was relatively low for youth in early adolescence, and highest for youth who were age 20 (22%). There were marked differences by gender; boys’ estimates, which were highest among boys at ages 14 (47%), 15 (57%), 16 (48%) and at ages 20 (46%) and 21 (40%). Boys estimates were significantly higher than girls’ estimates across all age groups (χ² (1)_range = 11.87 to 47.93, p < .01), except at age 18 (χ² (1) = 2.18, p = .14). Girls estimates from age 14 to age 17 remained under 10%; at ages 18, 19, 20, and 21 years, 18%, 15%, 17%, and 13% of girls reported experiencing at least one instance of police discrimination in the past year. As for generational status, no differences emerged between foreign-born, 1^st, and 2^nd generation adolescents.

Table 3.

Estimates of Police Discrimination from ages 12 to 21 years by Count, Percentage, and Project

	Age
	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21
Project Overall Sample size (N)
Identity	66	90	122	68	18	--	--	--
Juntos	--	--	--	56	101	117	95	71
MAMI		56	105	157	159	160	148	130
Total N	66	146	227	281	278	277	243	201
Individuals Reporting Discrimination (n)
Identity	11	8	7	7	1	--	--	--
Juntos	--	--	--	13	25	26	31	21
MAMI	11	7	12	15	28	26	23	14
Total N reporting discrimination (across samples)	11	18	73	126	145	89	56	35
Individuals Reporting Discrimination (%)
Identity	17%	9%	6%	10%	6%	--	--	--
Juntos	--	--	--	23%	25%	22%	33%	30%
MAMI	--	13%	11%	10%	18%	16%	16%	11%
Adjusted Overall Average %+	17%	10%	8%	12%	19%	19%	22%	17%

⁺Note. Percentage calculated by dividing n reporting discrimination by Total N.

Figure 2. Latino/a adolescents’ estimates of police discrimination from ages 15 to 21 years by (2a) age, (2b) gender, and (2c) generational status.

Across all ages, except age 18, boys’ and girls’ percentages were significantly different (p < .05). No differences emerged by generational status.

Given that two of the three studies utilized the same discrimination measure, we conducted additional sensitivity analyses to understand whether including a study with a different measure changed estimates. Specifically, we examined estimates in the Juntos (W3 and W4 only) and MAMI studies, and excluded the Identity project. A comparison of overall estimates of discrimination based on two studies versus three studies suggested that at most ages, estimates were very similar (< 6% difference). However, utilizing only two studies (with the same discrimination measure) produced higher rates (> 10% difference) at ages 15 and 16 years old as compared to estimates using all three studies. Given that the inclusion of all three studies includes a greater number of participants, and also contributes to larger sample sizes for each age group, we report these estimates. However, it is important to note that estimates in Figures 1 and 2 are likely conservative estimates of Latino/a youths’ experiences in the U.S. southwest.

Discussion

E-R discrimination remains a relevant and salient experience for E-R minority youth. Although our knowledge of the detrimental effects of discrimination has grown, almost no literature documents the extent to which Latino/a youth have these experiences. The current study combined and analyzed three unique datasets of Latino/a youth living in the U.S. Southwest, a geographic region that has experienced significant growth in the Latino/a population and also increased negative attention to immigration (Toomey, Umaña-Taylor, Williams, Harvey-Mendoza, Jahromi, & Updegraff, 2014). Combining datasets allowed us to examine the diversity of experiences of Latino youth across a broader age range, and explore differences by gender and generational status, which no other empirical study has done. Such an analysis is greatly needed as we find ourselves with such little information about the prevalence of discrimination in Latino youths’ lives. Indeed, aggregating across three unique samples, findings demonstrated that a majority of Latino/a youth reported at least one experience of discrimination in the past year and that boys were more likely to experience discrimination than girls. This study provides critical information about the experiences of U.S. youth in the Southwest and underscores the importance of these events during adolescence.

Before discussing the findings, attention to the unique nature of the samples used in the current study is warranted. The three samples differed in important ways—generational status, gender, and education. Overall, the Identity project was comprised of students whose parents had more formal education; youth in the Identity project also were more likely to be later generation than youth in the Juntos and MAMI projects. The MAMI sample consisted of adolescent mothers; thus, the unbalanced gender distribution when comparing the MAMI sample to the samples in the other two studies, and the subsequent gender differences, were expected. An examination of estimates of discrimination for each study reveals that youth in the Identity project reported lower discrimination. This aligns with prior work suggesting that (a) individuals with higher income or resources experience lower levels of discrimination (Williams et al., 2012) and (b) later generational youth report fewer experiences of discrimination than foreign born or earlier generational youth (Edwards & Romero, 2008; Sirin et al., 2015) – both of which were characteristics of the Identity project sample. The larger goal of the study, however, was to examine (as an aggregate) these three unique samples to describe experiences of discrimination across diverse groups of Latino adolescents. Thus, we now turn to reviewing findings and discussing implications in light of this goal.

For girls, general E-R discrimination estimates remained close to 50% between the ages of 12 to 15 years old. However, at ages 16, 17, 18, and 19 nearly three-quarters of Latinas reported discrimination. For Latino boys, estimates were higher than girls at age 17; and fluctuated from age 12 to 18. However, at ages 19, 20 and 21, boys’ estimates were well over 80%, pointing to a particularly vulnerable period for Latino boys growing up in the Southwest U.S. The gender differences that emerged in early and late adolescence may, in part, be explained by societal views and biases around men of color. Specifically, research indicates that Latino men are viewed as dangerous and more threatening than White men (Drakulich, 2010, Quillan & Pager, 2010) and these biases play a large role in mistreatment of men of color. The physical changes associated with puberty (e.g., growing facial hair, voices deepening) may play a role in boys’ high rates of discrimination observed in early in adolescence, whereas contextual changes (i.e., graduating high school, working) may play a role in the higher rates of discrimination evidenced among boys in late adolescence. Consistent with theoretical models of minority youth development (García Coll et al., 1996; Spencer, 1995), it will be important for future work to examine how individual and contextual characteristics independently and interactively predict Latino/a youths’ experiences.

In addition to general discrimination, the current study examined police discrimination. Here again, gender played an important role in differentiating experiences. Among Latina girls aged 14 to 17 years, estimates of discrimination were close to 10%. However, at age 18 and persisting to age 21, estimates were closer to 20%. Latino boys’ estimates were significantly higher than girls’ at all ages except age 18. However, it was during younger ages (14, 15, and 16 years old) that Latino boys appeared particularly vulnerable to negative interactions with police. Nearly half of all boys reported a discriminatory experience by police at least once in the past year at ages 14 and 16 years, and nearly two-thirds of boys at age 15 reported this experience. Such rates are concerning given that youth in early adolescence are still undergoing important cognitive and brain development changes (Dahl, 2004). Thus, youth may be ill-prepared to navigate negative interactions with police officers or not fully grasp the severity of such interactions, leaving them vulnerable to even more serious or life-threatening situations.

Although gender emerged as an important differentiating factor in the current analyses, differences by generational status were few. The exception was age 17; 1st generation youth reported greater general discrimination than 2^nd generation youth. This difference is consistent with some prior work with Latino/a youth that suggests that earlier generations (immigrant and 1^st generation youth) report more discrimination experiences than later generation youth (e.g., Edwards & Romero, 2008; Sirin et al., 2015). For police discrimination, no differences by generational status emerged suggesting that foreign-born, 1^st and 2^nd generation youth report similar interactions with police. Although generational status may capture some aspect of youth acculturation, it does not capture changes in language, values, and beliefs that may happen as youth adapt to the U.S. Indeed, many Latino immigrant youth experience discrimination and mistreatment based on their language (Kulis et al., 2009). Thus, to understand how acculturation processes play into discriminatory experiences, future research should consider how adolescent rates of E-R discrimination vary as a function of Latino youths’ values, language, and identity development.

The findings demonstrate the relevance and salience of E-R discrimination in Latino/a youths’ lives and provide a look at the frequency with which these events happen for adolescents living in the Southwest. Drawing on three unique samples allowed us to consider the variability in the Latino population, and pool across these samples to understand experiences of mistreatment. Such estimates are crucial as we begin to understand how contexts shape Latino youths’ experiences, and ultimately, their long-term health and psychological functioning.

Despite the strengths of the study, there are limitations worth noting. First, estimates of discrimination may be underestimated due to certain features of our design. For instance, we relied on youths’ retrospective reports, which tend to underestimate experiences (Funch & Marshall, 1984). Also, we assessed only overt discrimination, and not subtler forms (e.g., microaggressions) known to be common among Latino youth (Huynh, 2012). Related, given that adolescents’ responses to discrimination items differed across studies and, in most cases, ranged from never to very often, we dichotomized this variable (i.e., experienced discrimination vs. did not). This approach has its limitations, as it does not provide information about specific frequencies (a certain number of times). Yet, we believe it is informative to document the number of Latino adolescents who experienced at least one experience of discrimination in the past year. Future large scale, longitudinal research investigating daily or weekly occurrences, with attention to the number of events within the specified time frame and both overt and subtle experiences would more comprehensively capture youths’ experiences. Further, we focused on general discrimination, with little attention to discrimination from specific domains (e.g., school vs. neighborhood). One domain we focused on was police discrimination, but it was limited because it only captured youths’ perceptions using a single item. Understanding the ways that Latino/a youth experience mistreatment from police and other authorities (i.e., immigration enforcement), while also navigating discrimination within other contexts (e.g., schools), is greatly needed.

An additional limitation is the small number of individuals representing certain ages (e.g., ages 12, 13, 14) and that more reports came from girls than boys (given that the Supporting MAMI sample only included girls). Future work examining youths’ experiences across the developmental period of adolescence, and particularly intra-individual change, is needed to provide greater insight into the multiple forms of discrimination experienced by Latino/a youth across development. Finally, the three studies used in the current study differed in levels of education, generational status, and gender. Further, two of the studies focused exclusively on Mexican-origin youth; the other study focused more broadly on Latino youth (specific ethnic backgrounds were not collected, although a majority of Latino youth in the Southwest are of Mexican-origin). Although these studies may represent important aspects of diversity in the Latino population, they also are limited in that they provide no information about youths’ experiences with discrimination from other underrepresented backgrounds, which include youth from other Central or South American backgrounds (e.g., Guatemalan, Peruvian), immigrant indigenous youth, or youth from dual E-R backgrounds (e.g., Afro-Latino). Future research with these populations of youth is greatly needed.

Practice and Policy Implications

From a practice and policy perspective, our findings contradict mainstream ideas, particularly from ethnic-racial majority members, that discrimination experiences are uncommon and that E-R minorities are most often treated fairly by police officers (Pew Research Center, 2016). Our findings demonstrate that most Latino adolescents (both boys and girls) experience E-R discrimination and that these experiences are particularly common among Latino boys. Research with Latino youth has consistently documented that discrimination experiences are detrimental for youths’ health (Umaña-Taylor, 2016; Author Citations); yet, there remains almost no research examining (a) the implications of discrimination from police (and other law enforcement agencies) on Latino youths’ health and (b) how parents and communities prepare Latino youth for such experiences. We urge researchers and community members to prioritize this topic and to identify ways that communities are helping youth to successfully navigate these contexts. Such knowledge appears particularly needed at a time when immigration policies and laws are changing and many Latino parents report increased worry due to such changes (Roche, Vaquera, White, & Rivera, 2018).