Immigration,Extracurricular Activity,and the Role of Family

Abstract

The children of immigrants’ educational progress and success have been the focus of social research for decades. Although it is known that extracurricular activities contribute to adolescent development and overall well-being, it is also clear that participation varies across immigrant generations. Yet, empirical study explaining generational differences in extracurricular activities across different racial/ethnic groups is limited. This study uses data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) to investigate if family characteristics (i.e., socioeconomic status, structure, parental supervision, and parent–child communication and interaction) explain generational extracurricular activity participation for four racial/ethnic groups (Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians). Findings indicate that family characteristics indeed mediate the children of immigrants’ participation in school extracurricular activities. Moreover, results also denote that family characteristics are particularly relevant for Hispanic children of immigrants’ extracurricular activity participation.

Keywords

family capital race/ethnicity immigrant youth

Introduction

The children of immigrants are one of the fastest growing and most ethnically diverse segments of the child population in the United States (Portes & Fernández-Kelly, 2008). For these reasons, researchers, educators, and policymakers have striven to understand and facilitate their educational progress and success. As one of the first social institutions with which immigrants and their children come into contact in the host society, U.S. school system has the responsibility to educate these children and facilitate their assimilation and positive development (Kao, Vaquera, & Goyette, 2013; Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008). Subsequently, researchers have explored the patterns of participating in school extracurricular activity for the children of immigrants. Studies showed that extracurricular participation varies by immigrant generation, with first-generation immigrant children reporting the lowest level of participation and third-plus-generation ones reporting the highest (Jiang & Peterson, 2012; Okamoto, Herda, & Hartzog, 2013; Peguero, 2011). This problem cannot be overlooked because participating in school extracurricular activities is expected to provide immigrant youth opportunities to create social connections to peers, adult mentors, and with the larger community (Fredricks & Eccles, 2008; Guest & Schneider, 2003). Yet, despite of the research attention, current scholarship lagged behind in developing a greater understanding of what affects immigrant youth incorporation into school extracurricular activities. It remains unexplored that how the generational patterns of participation vary across different racial/ethnic groups and how family characteristics (i.e., socioeconomic status [SES], family size and structure, parental supervision, and communication and interaction) contribute to these variations.

A family’s SES, size, structure, and parent–child relationships have been found to be important predictors of youth participation in extracurricular activities (Barnett, 2008; Covay & Carbonaro, 2010; Douthitt, 1991; Huebner & Mancini, 2003; Persson, Kerr, & Stattin, 2007; Simpkins, Delgado, Price, Quach, & Starbuck, 2012). Although it has been well documented that many immigrant families have remarkable strengths, including strong family ties, a deep-seated belief in education, and optimism about the future, research demonstrated that immigrant families usually face a myriad of challenges such as residing in communities with high levels of poverty, unwelcoming contexts of reception, and discrimination and biased treatment (Kao et al., 2013; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, 2006; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008). Such social and economic barriers experienced by immigrant families may impede first- and second-generation immigrant children from participating in school extracurricular activities. As later-generation immigrants gradually adapt into American culture and gain socioeconomic equality, the disadvantage in participation may disappear.

Upward prediction of extracurricular participation across immigrant generations may be further complicated by race/ethnicity. Some studies have pointed out that the allocation of family resources and disparities apparent in many immigrant families arguably stem from racial/ethnic inequality (Bankston & Zhou, 2002; Massey, 2007; Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). For historically disadvantaged racial/ethnic groups, family disadvantages that impede extracurricular participation may remain across immigrant generations. Other studies have also suggested that a positive view of their heritage on the basis of cultural and racial/ethnic distinction among immigrants of certain racial/ethnic groups may be a buffer against obstacles faced by immigrant families (Glick & White, 2004; Zhou, 1997). This positive view may lead to a significantly higher level of extracurricular participation among first- and second-generation immigrant youth of these racial/ethnic groups. As a result, it is possible that the disadvantages in participation experienced by immigrant children persist across generations for some racial/ethnic groups, but such disadvantages do not occur for immigrant children from other racial/ethnic groups.

Whether the generational differences in extracurricular participation remain consistent across different racial/ethnic groups? To what extent do the characteristics of immigrant families contribute to the varying levels of extracurricular participation across immigrant generation and race/ethnicity? In the current study, we investigated these two questions by examining the relationships between family characteristics, immigrant generational status, race/ethnicity, and participation in school extracurricular activities. More specifically, we explored how variations in these family characteristics such as SES, structure, size, supervision, communication, and interaction translate into differential participation. The investigation of family characteristics and a consideration of immigrants’ generation and race/ethnicity offer a nuanced assessment of immigrant incorporation into extracurricular activities in the U.S. school system. We hope that our results will give educators and policymakers insight into how to more effectively engage current immigrant youth with the U.S. school system.

The Potential Impact of Family Characteristics on Participation in Extracurricular Activities

Previous literature has suggested that family characteristics have a significant influence on participation in extracurricular activities (Barnett, 2008; Charles, Roscigno, & Torres, 2007; Covay & Carbonaro, 2010; Persson et al., 2007; Simpkins et al., 2012). Of critical importance is the family’s SES, which, in most cases, is measured by parental education, income, and occupation. Research has consistently found that parental employment as well as higher levels of parental education and income are associated with higher rates of youth participation in extracurricular activities (Barnett, 2008; Covay & Carbonaro, 2010). It stands to reason that family SES to a large extent determines how much time and financial support parents can invest in their children’s extracurricular activities and how much leisure time and adequate transportation to and from events are available for them (Huebner & Mancini, 2003). Family SES also has an indirect influence on participation by shaping the values of activity participation for parents. For example, Lareau (2003) found that parents in high-SES families tend to take the concerted cultivation approach to their children’s education by emphasizing the importance of structured activities, whereas low-SES parents are more likely to adopt a natural growth approach, which does not value extracurricular participation.

Studies have also found a strong correlation between family structure and size and a high rate of extracurricular participation for children. In particular, families with two parents/guardians have more resources to meet their children’s needs and thus are more capable of providing supervision and direction for their children than single parents/guardians (Charles et al., 2007). Similarly, a family with smaller number of siblings is more likely to have adequate resources to invest in activities for each child. However, having more siblings is associated with resource dilution because the total amount of parental income, attention, and commitment of time must be shared with several children (Barnett, 2008). Therefore, children of single-parent/guardian families or who have more siblings are less likely to participate in extracurricular activities than those from two-parent/guardian and smaller families (Barnett, 2008; Douthitt, 1991; Huebner & Mancini, 2003).

In addition to family SES and structure, the level of communication and interaction among family members also affects children’s participation. According to Coleman (1988), a nurturing relationship between parents and children, often measured by high levels of communication and interaction, can have serious and long-lasting impacts on children’s progress, development, and success. For instance, if the parent/guardian has detailed knowledge of the children’s daily activities, takes time for shared time and activities, and maintains consistent communication with the children, adolescent well-being can be significantly improved (Mahoney, Schweder, & Stattin, 2002). Current research findings have indicated that youth in families with strong parent–child connections are more likely to be involved in structured extracurricular activities compared with those with less favorable family environments (Persson et al., 2007; Simpkins et al., 2012). In explaining such an association, Crosnoe and Trinitapoli (2008) suggested that parental involvement in shared activities with children increases youth participation in school and community extracurricular activities because these shared activities facilitate a connection between parents and children (Crosnoe & Trinitapoli, 2008). Persson et al. (2007) also suggested that youth who have a strong connection to supervised and structured family settings tend to gravitate toward structured leisure activates that can elicit the same positive feelings they receive in the family setting.

Family, Immigrant Generation, and Race/Ethnicity

Given the findings on the association between family characteristics and extracurricular participation, it becomes essential to explore how various family characteristics are distributed across different immigrant generations and racial/ethnic groups and how such distributions contribute to differential participation in extracurricular activities. Studies on immigrant families have revealed substantial variations in family characteristics by immigrant generation status. Children of first-generation families are generally much more likely to live in households characterized by poverty and economic hardship (Capps, Fix, Ost, Reardon-Anderson, & Passel, 2005). Many of them have a mother who does not work outside of the home, and instead, stays home to care for a large number of siblings in their household (Hernandez, 2004; Matthews & Ewen, 2006). However, the family-resource trajectories of second-generation immigrants are more aligned with those of third-plus-generation youth. Several key studies specified that second-generation youth experience narrowing family economic and social differentials from third-plus-generation youth (Harker, 2001; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, 2006; Rumbaut, 1997).

In addition to generational differences, there are racial/ethnic disparities in family resources. For example, Hispanic and Black families in general have been found to be socioeconomically marginalized. Many of these families have low levels of parental education and low-wage occupations, large household sizes, limited English proficiency, and reside in disorganized communities (Arriagada, 2005; Charles et al., 2007; Desmond & Kubrin, 2009; Turney & Kao, 2009). Asian youth, in contrast, are often considered to be “model minorities,” having highly educated parents with professional occupations whose income approaches or exceeds that of many White families (Charles et al., 2007). For example, Pong, Hao, and Gardner (2005) found that Hispanic parents of different generational groups reported lower levels of parental supervision in terms of their knowledge of their children’s whereabouts and the number of times parents monitor schoolwork than third-plus-generation Whites. However, discussions about dating, parties, or personal problems occur less frequently among Hispanics and Asians than third-plus generation Whites. These findings are consistent with Nord and Griffin’s (1999) study results, which indicate that Hispanic and Asian immigrant parents are less likely than native-born White parents to have high levels of involvement in their children’s schools. Despite evidence showing a positive relationship between family characteristics and extracurricular participation, it remains unclear the extent to which the variation in family characteristics accounts for differences in participation across various generations and racial/ethnic groups.

Generational and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Extracurricular Participation

Structured school extracurricular activities typically contain one or more of the following features that help promote positive development and mental health among youth: physical and psychological safety, structure, supportive relationships, opportunities to belong, positive social norms, support for efficacy and mattering, opportunities for skill building, and integration of family, school, and community efforts (Feldman & Matjasko, 2005, 2007; Fredricks & Eccles, 2008; Guest & Schneider, 2003). Research shows that participating in school extracurricular activities provides opportunities of social connections with peers, adult mentors, and with the larger community (Fredricks & Eccles, 2008; Guest & Schneider, 2003). Research also indicates that school extracurricular activities promote psychological and physiological development, educational progress and success, and overall well-being (Feldman & Matjasko, 2005, 2007; Fredricks & Eccles, 2008). These features and the opportunities are always present for youth from diverse backgrounds, including youth in immigrant families.

Although participation in extracurricular activities is a dominant feature in the lives of youth in the United States, not all have equal levels of participation. Recent research has suggested that immigrant youth in general have low levels of participation in school-based extracurricular activities compared with their native counterparts (Okamoto, Herda, & Hartzog, 2013; Reardon-Anderson, Capps, & Fix, 2002). Studies have also found that the participation rate increases with the amount of time spent in the country. For example, the first generation would be the least likely to participate, while the third-plus generations would be the most likely (Jiang & Peterson, 2012; Peguero, 2011). Although these findings have drawn increasing attention to incorporating immigrant youth into U.S. school settings, there have been few empirical studies examining patterns of generational change across different racial/ethnic groups and how family characteristics contribute to these disparate patterns of extracurricular activity involvement for the children of immigrants. This should not be overlooked because the literature suggests that a large number of immigrants may be constrained by the racial/ethnic inequality that systematically limits their access to social resources, such as opportunity for education and employment, resulting in persistent disparities in assimilation outcomes across generations (Zhou, 1997).

Segmented assimilation theory does provide some insight into such disparities. Conventional or “straight-line” assimilation theorists argue that assimilation proceeds in a direct manner that promotes upward intergenerational mobility (Alba & Nee, 2003; Kasinitz et al., 2009). In other words, as each subsequent generation becomes more acculturated into American society, it is rewarded for assimilation with increased opportunities for upward social, economic, and educational mobility. Segmented assimilation theorists, however, argue that racial/ethnic background is a significant factor in the assimilation process because social institutions, such as schools and families, have embedded racial and ethnic inequalities that hinders upward social, economic, and educational mobility for the children of immigrants (Gans, 1992; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, 2006; Rumbaut, 1997; Zhou, 1997). Therefore, rather than expecting a uniform trajectory of upward adaptation that occurs with greater exposure to American society, this orientation predicts that a downward trajectory may occur among certain ethnic groups. According to this theory, some immigrant groups and their offspring who possess high levels of family resources and receive a favorable reception may take a path of successful socioeconomic integration. In contrast, other groups who fall into a less favorable position in the host society may not be able to provide for their children’s education and upward mobility (Hirschman, 2001). This situation would be especially likely if immigrant youths are from historically disadvantaged racial/ethnic groups (Glick & White, 2004). Consistent with segmented assimilation theory, recent research has provided evidence that the disparity in contextual factors of family, school, and neighborhood translates into patterns of variation in the courses of adaptation followed by immigrant children (Glick, Ruf, White, & Goldscheider, 2006; Haller, Portes, & Lynch, 2011).

The Current Study

Based on segmented assimilation, one may expect to find differences in the effect of generational status on the trajectories of extracurricular participation among immigrant children from different ethnic groups. In this study, we utilized the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), a nationally representative data set, to investigate the variations in school extracurricular activity participation across immigrant generations (i.e., the first, the second, and the third-plus generation) and racial/ethnic groups (i.e., Whites, Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians). We also investigated the significance of family characteristics (i.e., SES, structure, supervision, communication, and interaction) in explaining these variations of school extracurricular activity involvement reported by youth across immigrant generations and race/ethnicity. Finally, this study discussed how clarifying the role of family in participation outcomes for the children of immigrants will allow policymakers to identify what causes low participation and to create a more inclusive atmosphere.

Method

Data

The empirical analysis discussed in this study is based on an in-home questionnaire and contextual data from Wave 1 of the Add Health. Add Health is a longitudinal, nationally representative, school-based survey of adolescents in Grades 7 through 12 in a representative sample of 134 high schools throughout the United States. Add Health provides excellent data for this study because it focuses on adolescent health behaviors and the multiple contexts (e.g., family, school, community) in which adolescents live. In addition, the data contain information regarding youths’ race/ethnicity and both youths’ and their parents’ birthplace, which allows for a comparison of different generations across racial/ethnic groups. Most minority racial/ethnic groups in the data were sampled in proportion to their size within the U.S. population, but the data contain oversamples of certain ethnic groups of Asian and Hispanic origins (Harris et al., 2003), who constitute the main force of current immigrant youth.

In the initial in-school survey (conducted in 1994-1995), questionnaires were administered to all students in Grades 7 through 12 who were present on the day of survey (N = 90,118). The in-school questionnaires covered a wide range of topics, including adolescents’ demographic characteristics, health status, parental education levels, friend networks, academic grades, and school activities. Then, a smaller sample of approximately 200 students from each of the 80 pairs of schools (n = 20,745) was randomly selected to participate in subsequent in-home interviews, along with their mother or other female heads of the households in most cases. The in-home interview covered additional topics, including adolescents’ and their parents’ country of birth; language used at home; their social, economic, physical, and psychological well-being; and health risk behaviors. The sample of this study includes all respondents who have completed both in-school survey and in-home interview for Wave 1. Given the research interest, we keep the cases for which the respondent reported being non-Hispanic Whites (n = 6,545), Blacks (n = 2,596), Hispanics (n = 1,890), or Asians (n = 724). The final analytic sample includes 11,755 youth ages 12 to 21 in 1994-1995.

Dependent Variable

Adolescents reported whether or not they participated, or were planning to participate, in any of the 33 items of extracurricular activities during the school year in the school survey. Three categories of extracurricular activities are created based on these items. Separate indicators of sports and non-sports activities were created (Darling, Caldwell, & Smith, 2005; Guest & Schneider, 2003). Participation in sports-related activities consists of 13 items, including baseball/softball, basketball, field hockey, football, ice hockey, soccer, volleyball, swimming, tennis, track, wrestling, cheerleading, and other sports. Non-sports activities include French club, German club, Latin club, Spanish club, book club, computer, history, mathematics, science, honor society, debate, band, drama, chorus, orchestra, newspaper, council, yearbook, and other clubs. For each category of activity participation, we dichotomize youth into those who reported participation in any of the activities in the same category (1) versus no participation in any of the activities in the category (0).

Independent Variables: Family Characteristics

The measures of family SES include parental educational attainment, parental income, and mother’s work status. Parental education is based on adolescents’ reports of the highest education received by their mother or father. Using the greater value of respondents’ responses for parental education in reference to their mother and father, four dummy variables are created to measure parental education attainment: less than high school, high school graduate or General Educational Development (GED), some college, and college graduate. College graduate is treated as a reference group. We use parents’ reports on the amount of annual income to create five dummy variables to measure parental income (measured in thousands): US$19,000 or less, US$20,000 to US$34,000, US$35,000 to US$49,000, US$50,000 or more. The category of US$50,000 is treated as a reference group. Mother’s working status is measured by a dichotomous variable indicating whether the female head of household has a job (1) or not (0).

Family structure is measured as a dichotomous variable indicating whether or not a respondent came from a family with both a father and mother present (1 = two-parent family; 0 = other family structure).

Family size is measured by number of siblings in family.

Parental supervision is taken from the responses in parents’ interview, which asked if parents had met their child’s best friend (1 = yes), their child’s best friend’s parents (1 = yes), and the total number of the parents of their child’s friends that they had met. Because these three items have different measurements, we standardize each of the three items and take the mean of the standardized values to form the scale of parental supervision.

Parental communication is measured by counting the issues that parents had discussed with their children. The scale ranges from 0 to 5, where 5 indicates that respondents had recently talked to their parents about a party or a person they were dating, a personal problem, their schoolwork or grades, and other things going on at school, and had a serious argument about their behaviors.

Similarly, parental interaction is measured by counting the activities parents had involved with their children. The scale ranges from 0 to 5, where 5 indicates that respondents had recently gone shopping; played a sport; went to church/a religious event; went to a movie, a show, museum, or sporting event; and worked on a project for school with their parents.

Given the interests of this study, we focus on the race/ethnicity and immigrant generation of the respondents. Race/ethnicity is measured by four dichotomous variables using the respondent’s report on his or her ethnic identity in the in-school survey. Based on the report, respondents are grouped into four racial-ethnic groups: White (n = 6,545), Black (n = 2,596), Hispanic (n = 1,890), and Asian (n = 724). For each race/ethnicity, a respondent is coded as 1 if he or she belongs to the race or ethnicity and 0 if not.

Three binary measures of immigrant generations (first generation, n = 822; second generation, n = 1,738; and third-plus generation, n = 9,135) were determined by adolescents’ responses to questions on whether or not they and their parents were born in the United States from the Wave 1 in-school survey. First generation indicates that the respondent was born outside of the United States (1 = not U.S. born; 0 = others). Second generation includes respondents who were U.S. born but have at least one parent who was born outside of the United States (1 = U.S. born with non–U.S. born parent(s); 0 = others). U.S.-born respondents with parents who were also born in the United States are considered as belonging to the third-plus generation (1 = U.S. born with parents who were also born in the United States; 0 = others). Because the third-plus generation is much farther removed from the possible impact of immigration on childhood and adolescent development, this group is considered as part of the domestic population. For the convenience of this study, this group is named as third-plus generation.

Of particular interest in this study are the interactions between race and immigrant generation. We categorize the sample by the race and immigrant generation of the respondents. This is measured by dummy variables for first-generation Asian, second-generation Asian, third-generation Asian; first-generation Hispanic, second-generation Hispanic, third-generation Hispanic; first-generation Black, second-generation Black, third-generation Black; first-generation White, second-generation White, and third-generation White students. By including three generations of Asians, Hispanics, and Whites, we compared generations across race/ethnicity with the third-plus generation White as the reference group.

Control Variables

This study controls for the respondent’s demographic characteristics such as age, sex (1 = male), and language use at home (1 = English) in every analytical model. Means for all variables used in the analysis are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Weighted Means of All Variables for Full Sample.

Variables	M
Sports activities	0.60
Non-sports activities	0.57
First-generation Asians	0.02
Second-generation Asians	0.03
Third-plus-generation Asians	0.01
First-generation Hispanics	0.03
Second-generation Hispanics	0.07
Third-plus-generation Hispanics	0.04
First-generation Blacks	0.01
Second-generation Blacks	0.01
Third-plus-generation Blacks	0.19
First-generation Whites	0.01
Second-generation Whites	0.03
Third-plus-generation Whites	0.55
Gender	0.48
Age	16.00
Use English at home	0.91
Family education
Less than high school	0.09
High school/GED	0.30
Some college	0.18
College graduates	0.44
Family income
Less than US$19,000	0.17
US$20,000-US$34,000	0.22
US$35,000-US$50,000	0.20
More than US$50,000	0.41
Mother works	0.79
Two-parents family	0.73
Number of siblings at home	1.41
Parental supervision	0.05
Parental interaction	1.96
Parental communication	2.68

Analytical Strategy

The analyses begin with descriptive statistics for extracurricular participation and the central independent variables of the full sample and across immigrant generations. This enables us to identify major differences among these groups in participation. Next, two survey-corrected logistic regression models are presented to further investigate ethnic and generational differences in participation in two types of extracurricular activities (sports activities, non-sports activities) and how the differences are explained by SES, structure, size, supervision, communication, and interaction.

To maintain a large sample size, we use the multiple imputation technique (MI) to deal with missing data (see Little & Rubin, 1987; Schafer & Olsen, 1998, for more about MI). MI is an improvement over single imputation and listwise deletion techniques because it enables a researcher to maintain a large sample size and not sacrifice statistical power in the analyses (von Hippel, 2007). Assuming that data are missing at random, MI provides unbiased estimates of the missing values using other variables in the model, thereby strengthening its precision (Schafer & Graham, 2002). We first limit the sample to respondents who finished both the in-school survey and in-home survey. We then eliminate cases that were missing on the dependent variables but not on any of the independent variables because such cases should not be included in the imputation (Allison, 2002). The variables with missing data are parental income, parental education, and mother’s working status. Finally, we impute replacement values for each missing value to produce a data set with complete information for 11,755 cases. Because Add Health has a complex sampling strategy that may be estimated with bias if left uncorrected, we perform all statistical analyses by using survey-corrected logistic regression to correct for multiple stages of cluster sample design and unequal probability of selection.

Results

Table 2 presents weighted means for extracurricular activities and family characteristics by race and the number of generations removed from immigration. Descriptive statistics indicated that extracurricular participation varied across different racial and generational groups. In particular, we found that Hispanics of all generations had substantially lower levels of participation in sports and non-sports activities relative to third-plus-generation Whites and that the mean scores of participation in all types of activities were found to increase across generations. However, such disadvantages in participation for earlier immigrant generation do not exist in some racial/ethnic groups. We found that first- and second-generation Asian children demonstrated a level of participation comparable with third-plus-generation Whites. Second-generation Asians had even higher rates of participation in non-sports activities. Even though third-plus generation Asians had a significantly lower participation rate in sports, they were much more active in non-sports than their White counterparts. In addition, Blacks across generations did not show significant differences in participation from third-plus-generation Whites. These findings illustrate the importance of taking into account the interactive effect of race and immigrant generation.

Table 2.

Weighted Means of Dependent and Independent Variables Across Immigrant Generation and Race/Ethnicity.

	Whites			Blacks			Hispanics			Asians
	1st Generation	2nd Generation	3+ Generation	1st Generation	2nd Generation	3+ Generation	1st Generation	2nd Generation	3+ Generation	1st Generation	2nd Generation	3+ Generation
Sample size	81	332	6,132	67	173	2,356	448	907	535	286	326	112
Sports activities	0.47	0.64	0.61	0.62	0.54	0.58	0.43***	0.48***	0.53*	0.48*	0.59	0.49*
Non-sports activities	0.55	0.59	0.55	0.61	0.52	0.51	0.33***	0.45**	0.47*	0.55	0.67*	0.69***
Family education
Less than high school	0.00***	0.11	0.06	0.02***	0.01	0.08	0.37***	0.36***	0.15***	0.14	0.10	0.01***
High school/GED	0.26	0.24*	0.33	0.28	0.30	0.40*	0.20***	0.32	0.35	0.16**	0.18***	0.28
Some college	0.14	0.19	0.19	0.15	0.11	0.19	0.14*	0.11***	0.15**	0.13	0.11**	0.16
College graduates	0.59**	0.46	0.42	0.55	0.57*	0.33*	0.29***	0.21***	0.35*	0.56*	0.61**	0.55*
Family income
Less than US$19,000	0.13	0.11	0.12	0.34	0.18*	0.36***	0.42***	0.31***	0.15	0.17	0.11	0.01***
US$20,000-US$34,000	0.26	0.13**	0.20	0.35	0.29*	0.26**	0.33	0.36***	0.26	0.26	0.15	0.20
US$35,000-US$50,000	0.32	0.23	0.22	0.10*	0.25	0.18**	0.12	0.16***	0.20**	0.21	0.16	0.22
More than US$50,000	0.28*	0.53	0.46	0.21**	0.27***	0.20***	0.12***	0.17***	0.39	0.36*	0.58*	0.58
Mother works	0.74	0.76*	0.78	0.92**	0.90***	0.83*	0.60***	0.62***	0.78	0.80	0.78	0.93***
Two-parents family	0.83	0.80	0.76	0.48**	0.46***	0.44***	0.65*	0.71	0.68*	0.80	0.79	0.77
Number of siblings at home	1.26	1.63***	1.30	1.63*	1.58*	1.48*	1.87***	2.02***	1.59***	1.84**	1.35	1.47
Parental supervision	−0.01*	0.12	0.16	−0.39**	−0.47***	−0.21***	−0.53***	−0.39***	−0.07***	−0.42***	−0.14***	−0.01*
Parental interaction	1.86	2.05	2.00	1.72**	1.75***	1.89	1.75***	1.69***	1.90	1.75***	1.86*	1.79
Parental communication	2.98*	2.61	2.68	2.42	2.52	2.60*	2.68	2.60	2.60	2.51*	2.47*	2.46

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. (comparison with third-plus-generation White).

Analysis of the predictive factors indicate that Hispanics appeared to differ notably from third-plus-generation Whites in that they tended to experience lower parental education, lower family income, a larger number of siblings at home, and weaker parental control. In addition, they reported lower rates of two-parent families and of mothers in the labor force. The mean scores also suggest a decrease in such disadvantages across generations. Similarly, Blacks were found to be disadvantaged in most of the predictive factors. However, it was third-plus-generation Blacks who were found to be most disadvantaged in terms of family SES, whereas the first and the second-generation were found to be less disadvantaged. In contrast, Asian immigrants had higher parental education and family incomes almost equal to those of third-plus-generation Whites. These advantages were even stronger among first- and second-generation Asians. Yet, first- and second-generation Asians experienced lower levels of family supervision, communication, and interaction than their White counterparts. Parents of first- and second-generation Asian children tended to know fewer of their children’s friends and friends’ parents, have fewer discussions with their children, and participate less in activities than parents of third-plus-generation White children.

Next, we ran regression analyses to further examine the interactive effects of race/ethnicity and immigrant generation on different types of extracurricular participation and how these effects can be explained by differences in access to family resources. Tables 3 and 4 display the results of survey-corrected logistic regression models that predict participation in athletic and non-athletic activities, respectively. Unstandardized logistic regression coefficients and their standard errors (in parentheses) are presented along with the odds ratios for the coefficients and the 95% confidence intervals (in brackets). The odds ratios are presented for ease of interpretation. They describe the proportionate change in the odds of the dependent variable for a unit change in the independent variable. For each type of activity, we first estimated a baseline logistic model, which included 11-category variables representing three generations of four racial/ethnic groups with third-plus-generation Whites as a reference group, controlling for respondents’ gender, age, and language spoken at home. To examine how family characteristics, immigrant generation, and race/ethnicity influences participation, we added variables of family SES and family structural factors to the baseline of Model 2 and variables of family supervision, communication, and interaction in Model 3.

Table 3.

Survey-Corrected Logistic Regression Models Predicting Participation in Sports Activities.

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	β (SE)	Odds ratio [95% CI]	β (SE)	Odds ratio [95% CI]	β (SE)	Odds ratio [95% CI]
Asians
First generation	−.42 (.32)	0.66 [0.30, 1.19]	−.51 (.29)	0.60 [0.29, 1.04]	−.37 (.31)	0.69 [0.33, 1.23]
Second generation	−.07 (.21)	0.93 [0.59, 1.43]	−.17 (.20)	0.84 [0.53, 1.26]	.04 (.20)	1.04 [0.60, 1.44]
Third-plus generation	−.59** (.22)	0.55 [0.31, 0.82]	−.74** (.23)	0.48 [0.27, 0.72]	−.64* (.25)	0.53 [0.28, 0.82]
Hispanics
First generation	−.54* (.18)	0.58 [0.35, 0.90]	−.33 (.22)	0.72 [0.43, 1.10]	−.25 (.22)	0.78 [0.46, 1.19]
Second generation	−.47** (.14)	0.63 [0.45, 0.78]	−.28* (.13)	0.76 [0.53, 0.91]	−.20 (.13)	0.82 [0.57, 0.99]
Third-plus generation	−.38** (.13)	0.68 [0.52, 0.86]	−.32* (.14)	0.73 [0.54, 0.92]	−.29* (.14)	0.75 [0.55, 0.96]
Blacks
First generation	.14 (.42)	1.15 [0.49, 2.68]	.15 (.45)	1.16 [0.47, 3.02]	.29 (.44)	1.34 [0.59, 3.30]
Second generation	−.26 (.25)	0.77 [0.41, 1.31]	−.22 (.25)	0.80 [0.43, 1.35]	−.07 (.26)	0.93 [0.48, 1.54]
Third-plus generation	−.09 (.10)	0.91 [0.72, 1.08]	.04 (.11)	1.04 [0.82, 1.26]	.10 (.11)	1.11 [0.86, 1.35]
Whites
First generation	−.53 (.28)	0.59 [0.32, 1.04]	−.59* (.28)	0.55 [0.31, 0.98]	−.49 (.34)	0.61 [0.34, 1.08]
Second generation	.11 (.17)	1.12 [0.75, 1.61]	−.06 (.17)	0.94 [0.71, 1.50]	.08 (.17)	1.08 [0.73, 1.52]
Third-plus generation (ref. group)	—		—		—
Male	−.35*** (.06)	1.40 [1.26, 1.57]	−.34*** (.06)	0.71 [1.25, 1.55]	.39*** (.06)	1.48 [1.30, 1.63]
Age	−.12*** (.03)	0.89 [0.84, 0.94]	−.12*** (.03)	0.89 [0.84, 0.93]	−.09** (.03)	0.91 [0.86, 0.96]
Use English at home	.13 (.14)	1.14 [0.79, 1.44]	−.02 (.15)	0.98 [0.65, 1.24]	−.02 (.16)	0.98 [0.65, 1.26]
Family education (ref. ≥ college)
Less than high school			−.62*** (.11)	0.54 [0.46, 0.71]	−.45*** (.11)	0.64 [0.55, 0.83]
High school/GED			−.26** (.07)	0.77 [0.68, 0.92]	−.16* (.07)	0.85 [0.75, 1.01]
Some college			−.14** (.07)	0.87 [0.73, 1.02]	−.08 (.08)	0.92 [0.78, 1.09]
Family income (ref. > US$50K)
Less than US$19,000			−.35** (.11)	0.70 [0.54, 0.84]	−.26* (.12)	0.77 [0.58, 0.91]
US$20,000-US$34,000			−.34*** (.09)	0.71 [0.58, 0.87]	−.28** (.09)	0.76 [0.61, 0.90]
US$35,000-US$50,000			−.22* (.09)	0.80 [0.69, 1.01]	−.17* (.08)	0.84 [0.72, 1.05]
Mother works			.20* (.08)	0.98 [0.97, 0.99]	.19* (.08)	0.99 [0.98, 1.00]
Two-parent family			.11 (.07)	1.12 [0.94, 1.24]	−.01 (.07)	0.99 [0.84, 1.11]
Number of siblings at home			.07** (.03)	1.07 [1.02, 1.14]	.08** (.03)	1.08 [1.02, 1.15]
Parental supervision					.25*** (.04)	1.28 [1.17, 1.40]
Parental interaction					.18*** (.03)	1.20 [1.12, 1.26]
Parental communication					.04* (.02)	1.04 [1.00, 1.09]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 4.

Survey-Corrected Logistic Regression Models Predicting Participation in Non-Sports Activities.

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	β (SE)	Odds ratio [95% CI]	β (SE)	Odds ratio [95% CI]	β (SE)	Odds ratio [95% CI]
Asians
First generation	.01 (.21)	1.01 [0.62, 1.53]	−.09 (.22)	0.91 [0.57, 1.45]	−.01 (.21)	0.99 [0.63, 1.58]
Second generation	.51 (.22)	1.67 [0.99, 2.42]	−.38 (.21)	0.68 [0.46, 0.96]	.48 (.22)	1.62 [0.95, 2.24]
Third-plus generation	.70** (.14)	2.01 [1.36, 2.46]	.60** (.16)	1.82 [1.18, 2.35]	−.68* (.16)	0.51 [0.32, 0.79]
Hispanics
First generation	−.99* (.24)	0.37 [0.23, 0.65]	−.82 (.23)	0.44 [0.28, 0.76]	−.77 (.23)	0.46 [0.30, 0.81]
Second generation	−.44** (.16)	0.64 [0.45, 0.89]	−.21 (.17)	0.81 [0.55, 1.11]	−.16 (.16)	0.85 [0.59, 1.17]
Third-plus generation	−.31* (.13)	0.73 [0.53, 1.02]	−.21 (.16)	0.81 [0.58, 1.13]	−.19 (.16)	0.83 [0.60, 1.14]
Blacks
First generation	.15 (.41)	1.16 [0.40, 2.10]	.16 (.39)	1.17 [0.43, 2.09]	−.27 (.39)	0.76 [0.48, 1.61]
Second generation	−.20 (.23)	0.82 [0.56, 1.41]	−.15 (.24)	0.86 [0.59, 1.44]	−.06 (.24)	0.94 [0.64, 1.62]
Third-plus generation	−.22 (.11)	0.80 [0.64, 1.02]	−.07 (.10)	0.93 [0.76, 1.18]	−.03 (.10)	0.97 [0.79, 1.21]
Whites
First generation	−.08 (.39)	0.92 [0.39, 1.86]	−.20 (.36)	0.82 [0.37, 1.58]	−.13 (.36)	0.88 [0.39, 1.69]
Second generation	.19 (.15)	1.21 [0.82, 1.57]	.17 (.16)	1.19 [0.78, 1.52]	.18 (.16)	1.20 [0.80, 1.54]
Third-plus generation (ref. group)	—		—		—
Male	−.96*** (.06)	0.38 [0.34, 0.43]	−1.03*** (.06)	0.36 [0.32, 0.40]	.99*** (.06)	2.69 [2.23, 2.87]
Age	−.01 (.03)	0.99 [0.94, 1.05]	−.01 (.03)	0.99 [0.94, 1.04]	.01 (.02)	1.01 [0.96, 1.06]
Use English at home	.05 (.15)	1.05 [0.73, 1.42]	−.09 (.16)	0.91 [0.61, 1.25]	−.09 (.15)	0.91 [0.62, 1.25]
Family education (ref. ≥college)
Less than high school			−.81*** (.11)	0.44 [0.36, 0.58]	−.45*** (.11)	0.64 [0.51, 0.78]
High school/GED			−.63*** (.08)	0.53 [0.45, 0.61]	−.60*** (.08)	0.55 [0.47, 0.66]
Some college			−.30** (.09)	0.74 [0.62, 0.89]	−.26** (.09)	0.77 [0.64, 0.93]
Family income (ref. > US$50K)
Less than US$19,000			−.19 (.10)	0.83 [0.64, 0.99]	−.12 (.10)	0.89 [0.68, 1.06]
US$20,000-US$34,000			−.31** (.09)	0.73 [0.61, 0.87]	−.27** (.09)	0.76 [0.64, 0.91]
US$35,000-US$50,000			−.21* (.09)	0.81 [0.70, 1.02]	−.16* (.08)	0.85 [0.73, 1.06]
Mother works			.04 (.07)	1.04 [0.99, 1.06]	.03 (.07)	1.03 [0.96, 1.09]
Two-parent family			.16* (.08)	1.17 [0.95, 1.32]	.07 (.09)	1.07 [0.87, 1.24]
Number of siblings at home			−.04 (.03)	0.96 [0.91, 1.02]	−.04 (.03)	0.96 [0.91, 1.02]
Parental supervision					.15** (.04)	1.16 [1.06, 1.27]
Parental interaction					.13*** (.03)	1.14 [1.07, 1.20]
Parental communication					.08** (.02)	1.08 [1.03, 1.12]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Model 1 is a baseline that showed the interaction of immigrant generation and race/ethnicity on participation when controlling for gender, age, and language spoken at home. The results in the first model were consistent with the descriptive results. Including control variables, we found that Hispanics were still less likely to participate in both sports and non-sports activities than third-plus-generation Whites. For example, first-, second-, and third-plus generation Hispanics have significantly lower odds (by about 42%, 37%, and 32%, respectively) than third-plus generation youth of participating in athletic activities. In addition, the magnitudes of coefficients decreased across each subsequent generation among Hispanics. Asians and Black immigrants did not exhibit disadvantage in participation. Unlike first- and second-generation Asian immigrants, third-plus-generation Asians were less likely to participate in sports activities (by about 45% lower odds of participation).

Model 2 included socioeconomic and family structural factors. Not surprisingly, family SES in terms of higher education, higher family income, and having a mother in the workforce was associated with higher likelihood of participation in extracurricular activities. After family-related variables were added to the model, the coefficients of ethnicity–generation decreased substantially for Hispanics. Second- and third-plus-generation Hispanics were no longer significantly less likely to participate in non-sports activities than third-plus-generation Whites. Adding family SES also reduced the coefficients for participation in non-athletic activities for third-plus-generation Blacks. For Asians, we found a drop in the magnitude of the coefficient for non-sports activities by including family socioeconomic factors, suggesting that high SES contributes to participating in non-sports activities. Interestingly, the inclusion of SES led to an increase in the negative coefficient of sports participation (from 45% to 52% higher odds of participation) for third-plus-generation Asians. It appears that Asian children from families with higher SESs appeared to favor non-athletic activities.

Model 3 included variables of family supervision, communication, and interaction to examine whether these factors contribute to racial/generational differences in extracurricular participation. Consistent with previous research, we found that higher levels of parental supervision, interaction, and communication were positively associated with higher likelihoods of extracurricular participation. The inclusion of these factors further reduced the coefficients of extracurricular participation for Hispanics as well. Most of the coefficients for Hispanics from different generations became insignificant with regard to sports activities. However, adding family supervision, communication, and interaction increased the coefficient of non-athletic participation for Asians by 13.33%. The results for Asians clearly indicate that regardless of lower levels of family supervision, communication, and interaction, Asians demonstrated higher levels of participation in non-athletic activities. Enhancing these family characteristics can further boost such participation among Asians. The full model indicates that the inclusion of family characteristics further explains the variations in participation level for Hispanics but not for Asians. Asians had a significantly lower level of participation in sports and higher level in non-athletic activities in all full models even after family characteristics were included.

Discussion and Conclusion

Extracurricular activities are an essential part of the American school system that contributes to the positive development of American youth. Yet, research has shown that current immigrant youth have low rates of participation relative to their domestic counterparts. Previous studies have discussed a model of upward mobility in which the disparity between immigrants and non-immigrants gradually wanes across generations. However, whether such generational change is consistent across race/ethnicity and how family characteristics explain extracurricular participation have rarely been included in studies of immigrant children. Using Add Health survey data, this study considered how school extracurricular participation varied by immigrant generation and racial/ethnicity. Moreover, based on previous literature on family and extracurricular activities, the purpose of this study was to specifically understand the extent to which race/ethnicity and generational differences in extracurricular participation can be explained by the family characteristics.

Our results confirmed the findings of the segmented assimilation argument, which states that interactions of race/ethnicity and generation status of some immigrant youth lag behind their third-plus-generation White counterparts in extracurricular participation while others do not. For Hispanics, the likelihood of extracurricular participation for all immigrant generations fell behind that of third-plus-generation Whites; however, this gap narrows across generations. In addition, compared with third-plus-generation Whites, participation rates of first- and second-generation Asians and Blacks were not found to be significantly lower. Regarding Asians, second-generation Asians showed a higher likelihood of participation in non-athletic activities. It is the third-plus-generation Asians and Blacks who were found to have a lower likelihood of participation in non-sports activities, which were much lower than Whites of the same generation. These findings suggest that participation in extracurricular activities does not always follow an upward mobility across generations. It also varies by race/ethnicity.

We hypothesized that family characteristics could explain the combined effects of immigrant generations and race/ethnicity on extracurricular participation. Overall, we found some evidence that supports our hypothesis. In particular, for Hispanics, the racial/ethnic differences in which first- and second-generation youth vary from their third-plus-generation White counterparts was largely due to differences in family resources. The SES of the family, presence of supervision, communication, and interaction accounted for the positive association between generations of Hispanics and participation in extracurricular activities. This led us to believe that a lack of family resources places Hispanic immigrant youth at risk for inadequate participation. Although such disadvantages diminish among third-plus-generation Hispanics, it still plays a role in impeding their participation in extracurricular activities.

However, the same explanations related to family characteristics and participation did not hold for the participation patterns of Blacks and Asians. Family SES, structure, parental supervision, communication, and interaction were not found to play a major role in predicting participation for Black and Asian immigrants. Despite the fact that Blacks in general experience insufficient family resources, only third-plus-generation Blacks had a lower level of participation in non-athletic activities, which can be explained by family SES, supervision, communication, and interaction. This finding supports the hypothesis of segmented assimilation, which suggests that many in the later generations of immigrant groups will be barred from opportunities for upward social, educational, and economic mobility by inequality and discrimination (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, 2006).

We found that Asian immigrant children did not experience disadvantages in either family resources or extracurricular participation. Such a finding is not surprising given that Asians are the sources of high human capital immigration who receive a positive reception and create opportunities and resources for their offspring (Haller et al., 2011; Zhou, Lee, Vallejo, Tafoya-Estrada, & Xiong, 2008). Although controlling for the factors of family SES partially explains the advantage of participation in non-athletics, the significance of low participation in sports and high participation in other activities among Asians remains largely unexplained. What is also interesting is that family SES contributed to the significance of lower participation in sports among third-plus-generation Asians. In other words, Asian children from high-SES families showed a preference for non-athletic activities. One possible explanation is that Asian culture values non-physical activities. For example, Stodolska and Alexandris (2004) pointed out that in general Asian culture emphasizes passivity and collectivity rather than activity and individualism. Such elements may lead to negative attitudes about sports.

In addition, despite a high SES, Asian immigrant families possessed lower levels of supervision, communication, and interaction than Whites, which further contributes to the limited participation in sports and non-sports even among third-plus-generation Asians. This finding is consistent with previous research which found that given their limited English-language skills and distinct social customs, Asian parents have less interaction with parents of children’s friends and their own children and less involvement with their children’s activities outside of the family (Kao, 2004; Kao & Rutherford, 2007). Although these factors do not restrict Asian children from having participation rates comparable with or higher than White children, our finding suggests that strengthening family supervision, communication, and interaction can further boost participation for Asian children.

Overall, this study contributes to a better understanding of extracurricular participation among immigrant youth and its relationship to family resources. Our results showed that there are generational differences in extracurricular participation across racial/ethnic groups, and such differences are, to a large extent, due to variations in family resources in terms of family SES, supervision, communication, and interaction for certain racial/ethnic groups. The results provide support for segmented assimilation by suggesting diverse trajectories of assimilation into mainstream activities and indicating the importance of social context that contributes to diversity. Yet, these factors do not fully explain all the generational differences across racial/ethnic groups. Future research is needed to identify other factors that influence extracurricular participation of immigrant and racial/ethnic minority children.

The findings of this study could have important implications on the policies and programs that promote extracurricular activities among immigrant youth. Immigrants and their children cannot be considered a homogeneous group for which uniform intervention approaches will be successful in promoting their extracurricular participation and assimilation into the host society. It is clear that lower family SES and parental barriers place Hispanic immigrant youth at greater risk of low participation. However, family resources do not explain the preferences for non-sports activities for Asians. Additional research is needed, and contextual factors other than family background should be included in future research to provide a better understanding of the relationships between immigration status and participation in extracurricular activities.

Because there is a general consensus that school extracurricular activities promote educational progress and overall well-being for all youth who participate, there are significant resources being allocated to the development of these programs (Guest & Schneider, 2003; White & Gager, 2007). In addition, because of the current demographic changes evident in the United States, it would be wise for school administrators, counselors, policymakers, and faculty to acknowledge the barriers and hurdles youth in immigrant families face and implement strategies and programs, such as extracurricular activities, to facilitate and promote development for these marginalized groups. Furthermore, it is important to consider race/ethnicity, immigrant generation, and family characteristics to better educate immigrant youth, many of whom are already marginalized within the U.S. school system (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, 2006; Rumbaut, 1997; Zhou, 1997).

The demographic landscape in the United States is dramatically changing. For the first time in U.S. history, as a result of high rates of immigration, it is projected that racial/ethnic minorities will represent more than half the total youth population within 30 years; moreover, most of the nation’s babies are members of racial/ethnic minority groups (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Ensuring the educational progress and success of historically underserved and marginalized youth in immigrant families is particularly pressing. Youth in immigrant families often face education barriers and hurdles toward their success (Kao et al., 2013; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008). Considering the growing population of youth in immigrant families in the United States and addressing educational inequalities, such as limited or restricted access to extracurricular activities, are imperative as the nation becomes increasingly immersed in a global competitive market.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Xin Jiang is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania. Her fields of interest include juvenile delinquency, youth and adolescents, immigrant assimilation, and race/ethnicity. She is also a member of the Racial Democracy, Crime, and Justice Network that holds the dual goals of advancing research on the intersection of race, crime, and justice and of promoting racial democracy within the study of these issues by supporting junior scholars from under-represented groups.

Anthony A. Peguero is an associate professor of sociology and research affiliate of the Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention at Virginia Tech. His research interests involve youth violence, socialization and marginalization, schools, and the adaptation of the children immigrants. He is also a National Institute Justice W. E. B. Du Bois Fellow and member of the Racial Democracy, Crime, and Justice Network.

References

Alba

Nee

(2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Allison

P. D.

(2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Arriagada

P. A.

(2005). Family context and Spanish-language use: A study of Latino children in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 599-619.

Bankston

C. L.

III Zhou

(2002). Social capital as process: The meanings and problems of a theoretical metaphor. Sociological Inquiry, 72, 285-317.

Barnett

(2008). Predicting youth participation in extracurricular recreational activities: Relationships with individual, parent, and family characteristics. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 26, 28-60.

Capps

Fix

Ost

Reardon-Anderson

Passel

J. S.

(2005). The health and well-being of young children of immigrants. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Charles

C. Z.

Roscigno

V. J.

Torres

K. C.

(2007). Racial inequality and college attendance: The mediating role of parental investments. Social Science Research, 36, 329-352.

Coleman

J. S.

(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.

Covay

Carbonaro

(2010). After the bell: Participation in extracurricular activities, classroom behavior, and academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 83, 20-45.

10.

Crosnoe

Trinitapoli

(2008). Shared family activities and the transition from childhood into adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 23-48.

11.

Darling

Caldwell

L. L.

Smith

(2005). Participation in school-based extracurricular activities and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Leisure Research, 37, 51-76.

12.

Desmond

Kubrin

C. E.

(2009). The power of place: Immigrant communities and adolescent violence. Sociological Quarterly, 50, 581-607.

13.

Douthitt

R. A.

(1991). Children’s time use in single and two-parent families: Does household organization matter? Home Economics Research Journal, 20, 40-51.

14.

Feldman

Matjasko

(2005). The role of school-based extracurricular activities in adolescent development: A comprehensive review and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 75, 159-211.

15.

Feldman

Matjasko

(2007). Profiles and portfolios of adolescent school-based extracurricular activity participation. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 313-332.

16.

Fredricks

J. A.

Eccles

J. S.

(2008). Participation in extracurricular activities in the middle school years: Are there developmental benefits for African American and European American youth? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 1029-1043.

17.

Gans

H. J.

(1992). Second-generation decline: Scenarios for the economic and ethnic futures of the post-1965 American immigrants. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 15, 173-192.

18.

Glick

J. E.

Ruf

S. D.

White

M. J.

Goldscheider

F. K.

(2006). Education and early family formation: Patterns by race, ethnicity and generation status. Social Forces, 84, 1391-1415.

19.

Glick

J. E.

White

M. J.

(2004). Parental aspirations and post-secondary school participation among immigrant and native youth in the United States. Social Science Research, 33, 272-299.

20.

Guest

Schneider

(2003). Adolescents’ extracurricular participation in context: The mediating effects of schools, communities, and identity. Sociology of Education, 76, 89-105.

21.

Haller

Portes

Lynch

S. M.

(2011). Dreams fulfilled, dreams shattered: Determinants of segmented assimilation in the second generation. Social Forces, 89, 733-762.

22.

Harker

(2001). Immigrant generation, assimilation and adolescent psychological wellbeing. Social Forces, 79, 969-1004.

23.

Harris

K. M.

Florey

Tabor

Bearman

Jones

Udry

J. R.

(2003). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health: Research design. Retrieved from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design

24.

Hernandez

D. J.

(2004). Demographic change and the life circumstances of immigrant families. The Future of Children, 14(2), 16-47.

25.

Hirschman

(2001). The educational enrollment of immigrant youth: A test of the segmented assimilation hypothesis. Demography, 38, 317-336.

26.

Huebner

A. J.

Mancini

J. A.

(2003). Shaping structured out-of-school time use among youth: The effects of self, family, and friend systems. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 453-463.

27.

Jiang

Peterson

R. D.

(2012). Beyond participation: The association between school extracurricular activities and involvement in violence across generations of immigration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 362-378.

28.

Kao

(2004). Parental influences on the educational outcomes of immigrant youth. International Migration Review, 38, 427-449.

29.

Kao

Rutherford

L. T.

(2007). Does social capital still matter? Immigrant minority disadvantage in social capital and its effects on academic achievement. Sociological Perspectives, 50, 27-52.

30.

Kao

Vaquera

Goyette

(2013). Education and immigration. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

31.

Kasinitz

Mollenkopf

J. H.

Waters

M. C.

Holdaway

(2009). Inheriting the city: The children of immigrants come of age. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

32.

Lareau

(2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

33.

Little

R. J. A.

Rubin

D. B.

(1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York, NY: John Wiley.

34.

Mahoney

J. L.

Schweder

A. E.

Stattin

(2002). Structured after-school activities as a moderator of depressed mood for adolescents with detached relations to their parents. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 69-86.

35.

Massey

D. S.

(2007). Borderline madness: America’s counterproductive immigration policy. In Swain

C. M.

(Ed.), Debating immigration (pp. 129-138). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Matthews

Ewen

(2006). Reaching all children: Understanding early care and education participation among immigrant families. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.

37.

Nord

Griffin

J. A.

(1999). Educational profile of 3- to 8-year-old children of immigrants. In Hernandez

D. J.

(Ed.), Children of immigrants: Health, adjustment, and public assistance (pp. 91-131). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

38.

Okamoto

D. G.

Herda

Hartzog

(2013). Beyond good grades: School composition and immigrant youth participation in extracurricular activities. Social Science Research, 42, 155-168.

39.

Peguero

A. A.

(2011). Immigrant youth involvement in school-based extracurricular activities. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 19-27.

40.

Persson

Kerr

Stattin

(2007). Staying in or moving away from structured activities: Explanations involving parents and peers. Developmental Psychology, 43, 197-207.

41.

Pong

Hao

Gardner

(2005). The roles of parenting styles and social capital in the school performance of immigrant Asian and Hispanic adolescents. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 928-950.

42.

Portes

Fernández-Kelly

(2008). No margin for error: Educational and occupational achievement among disadvantaged children of immigrants. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 620, 12-36.

43.

Portes

Rumbaut

R. G.

(2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

44.

Portes

Rumbaut

R. G.

(2006). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press.

45.

Reardon-Anderson

Capps

Fix

M. E.

(2002). The health and well-being of children in immigrant families (Series B, No. B-52). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

46.

Rumbaut

R. G.

(1997). Ties that bind: Immigration and immigrant families in the United States. In Booth

Crouter

A. C.

Lansdale

N. S.

(Eds.), Immigration and the family: Research and policy on U.S. immigrants booth (pp. 3-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

47.

Schafer

J. L.

Graham

J. W.

(2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177.

48.

Schafer

J. L.

Olsen

M. K.

(1998). Multiple imputation for multivariate missing-data problems: A data analyst’s perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 545-571.

49.

Simpkins

S. D.

Delgado

M. Y.

Price

C. D.

Quach

Starbuck

(2012). Socioeconomic status, ethnicity, culture, and immigration: Examining the potential mechanisms underlying Mexican-origin adolescents’ organized activity participation. Developmental Psychology, 48, 674-686.

50.

Stodolska

Alexandris

(2004). The role of recreational sport in the adaptation of first generation immigrants in the United States. Journal of Leisure Research, 36, 379-413.

51.

Suárez-Orozco

Todorova

(2008). Learning a new land: Immigrant students in American society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

52.

Turney

Kao

(2009). Barriers to school involvement: Are immigrant parents disadvantaged? The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 257-271.

53.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Current Population Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division.

54.

von Hippel

P. T.

(2007). Regression with missing Ys: An improved method for analyzing multiply imputed data. Sociological Methodology, 37, 83-117.

55.

White

Gager

(2007). Idle hands and empty pockets? Youth involvement in extracurricular activities, social capital, and economic status. Youth & Society, 39, 75-111.

56.

Zhou

(1997). Segmented assimilation: Issues, controversies, and recent research on the new second generation. International Migration Review, 31, 825-858.

57.

Zhou

Lee

Vallejo

J. A.

Tafoya-Estrada

Xiong

(2008). Success attained, deterred, and denied: Divergent pathways to social mobility in Los Angeles’s new second generation. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 620, 37-61.