neighborhood, parenting, and adolescent factors and academic achievement in latino adolescents from...

Neighborhood, Parenting, and Adolescent Factors andAcademic Achievement in Latino Adolescents From

Immigrant Families

Carolyn S. Henry Michael J. Merten Scott W. Plunkett Tovah Sands*

Abstract: Self-report questionnaire, school records, and census block group data for 502 Latino adolescents in immi-grant families were examined using multilevel modeling to test how structural neighborhood adversity, in additionto perceived neighborhood, parental, and adolescent factors, explained grade point average (GPA). The resultsshowed perceived neighborhood risk, mothers’ education aspirations for youth, and gender were directly related toGPA. Academic motivation mediated the relationship between fathers’ and mothers’ monitoring and GPA. Implica-tions for prevention, intervention, and policy are presented.

Key Words: academic achievement, educational aspirations, immigrant, Latino adolescents, neighborhood, parenting.

The fastest growing segment of the U.S. popula-tion under 18 is youth in immigrant families(Reardon-Anderson, Capps, & Fix, 2002). In2003, 21.1% of U.S. high school students residedin immigrant families (i.e., one or more foreign-born parents; Hernandez, 2004; U.S. CensusBureau, 2005). Given that over half of the immi-grants are Latino (Malone, Baluja, Constanzo, &Davis, 2003), and academic achievement is impor-tant to adolescents’ future contributions to society(Suarez-Orozco, 2001), family professionals arechallenged to promote the educational develop-ment of Latino youth in immigrant families. Suchefforts are limited by insufficient research onLatino adolescents in immigrant families, limitedconsideration of the ecological milieu for theireducational development, a focus on problembehaviors (e.g., Martinez, 2006), and comparisonswith other ethnic groups (e.g., Aldous, 2006).Guided by ecological perspectives, the present studyused hierarchical linear modeling to examine theunique contribution of neighborhood, parenting, and

adolescent factors to academic achievement for Latinoadolescents in immigrant families.

Ecological Perspectives on Academic Achievement forAdolescents in Immigrant Families

Adolescents’ educational development occurs withinan ecological milieu composed of environmental (e.g.,neighborhood) and proximal (e.g., relationships withparents or adolescent qualities) contexts (Bronfenbren-ner, 1979; Woolley & Grogan-Kaylor, 2006). Bron-fenbrenner argued that individuals’ interpretationsmay be more important than the actual contexts forguiding behavior because it is a ‘‘folly to try and under-stand a child’s action solely from the objective qualitiesof an environment without learning what those quali-ties mean for the child in that setting’’ (pp. 24 – 25).Hence, adolescents’ interpretations or perceptions ofobjective contexts are central to understanding aspectsof adolescent academic achievement (Ogbu, 1981).

Although Latino immigrant families vary on thebasis of countries of origin or reasons for immigration

*Carolyn S. Henry is a professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Science at the Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK (carolyn.henry@

okstate.edu). Michael J. Merten is an assistant professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Science at the Oklahoma State University, 700 N

Greenwood Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74106 ([email protected]). Scott W. Plunkett is a professor in the Department of Psychology at the California State Univer-

sity, Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330-8255 ([email protected]). Tovah Sands is an associate professor in the Department of Educa-

tional Psychology and Counseling at the California State University, Northridge, Northridge, CA 91330-8265 ([email protected]).

Family Relations, 57 (December 2008), 579–590. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Copyright 2008 by the National Council on Family Relations.

A Publication ofthe National Council on

Family Relations

(e.g., quality of life, employment or educationalopportunities, violence, war, or persecution), opti-mism for an improved quality of life and educationalopportunities for children tend to be common priori-ties (Suarez-Orozco, Suarez-Orozco, & Todorova,2008). Despite a desire for youth educational success,the heightened risk for residing in disadvantagedneighborhoods may undermine adolescents’ academicachievement (Hernandez, 2004) as adolescent educa-tional development emulates the neighborhood con-text (Pong & Hao, 2007).

Academic achievement is an important indicatorof the future prospects in society for Latino youth inimmigrant families (Suarez-Orozco, 2001). In the bro-ader U.S. population, adolescents’ academic achieve-ment is positively related to future educational(Dornbusch, Ritter, & Steinberg, 1991) and occu-pational success and negatively related to substanceabuse, delinquency, emotional problems, and behav-ioral problems (Annunziata, Hogue, Faw, & Liddle,2006; Jansen & Bruinsma, 2005). Because Latinoadolescents in immigrant families are at increasedrisk for lower grade point average (GPA; Pong &Hao, 2007), an important indicator of academicachievement, research is needed to examine howneighborhood, parental, and adolescent factors re-late to GPA for Latino adolescents from immigrantfamilies.

Neighborhood Factors and Academic Achievement

Neighborhoods constitute a distal part of the ecolog-ical context for adolescent achievement (Gephart,1997). Research shows that structural neighborhoodadversity and perceived neighborhood risk are bothimportant neighborhood factors to examine inrelation to academic achievement for Latino youth(Furstenberg, Cook, Eccles, Elder, & Sameroff,1999; Plunkett, Abarca-Mortensen, Behnke, &Sands, 2007). Often assessed using U.S. Censusdata, neighborhood structural adversity describes theprevalence of poverty, public assistance, and unem-ployment in neighborhoods (Bass & Lambert,2004).

Latino adolescents in immigrant families are atheightened risk for residing in neighborhoods char-acterized by poverty and violence (Suarez-Orozcoet al., 2008). Official poverty rates are substantiallyhigher for youth in immigrant families than for chil-dren in nonimmigrant (i.e., native-born) families,21 versus 14% (Hernandez, 2004). Youth in

immigrant families who reside in disadvantagedneighborhoods are at increased risk for dropping outof school (Perreira, Harris, & Lee, 2006) and assimi-lation into poverty (Aldous, 2006). Using theNational Adolescent Health survey, Pong and Hao(2007) found a negative association between neigh-borhood adversity and GPA for adolescents inimmigrant families, but not those in native families.In sum, both research and theory support the expec-tation that structural neighborhood adversity meritsexamination as a context for academic achievementof youth in Latino immigrant families.

In addition to structural neighborhood adversity,Plunkett et al. (2007) found that adolescents’ per-ceptions of neighborhood risk (e.g., poverty, loweducation, unemployment, substance use, crime,and violence) explained variation in the GPA ofLatino adolescents. Using cultural ecological per-spectives, Ogbu (1981) emphasized the importanceof the perspectives of participants who may see theirneighborhoods through cultural lenses. Perceptionsof neighborhood risk may be particularly importantduring adolescence because of the openness toneighborhood influences (Pong & Hao, 2007).Negative social mirroring can occur as Latino youthin immigrant families perceive neighborhood riskand, in turn, demonstrate diminished academicachievement (Suarez-Orozco & Qin-Hillard, 2004).The present research expands upon existing researchby examining academic achievement for Latino ado-lescents in families nested in census block groupswhile taking into account perceived neighborhoodrisk, parenting factors, and adolescent factors.

Parenting Factors and Academic Achievement

Adolescent perceptions of parents’ qualities providea proximal environment that may explain variationin academic achievement. Yet, Latino youth mayperceive their mothers’ and fathers’ qualities reflect-ing traditional Latino cultural values such as (a) fam-ilism (familismo) characterized by loyalty,obligation, and interdependence and (b) respect(respeto) for self and family members to maintainharmony in relationships (Halgunseth, Ispa, &Rudy, 2006). Thus, the responsiveness of Latinoyouth in immigrant families to their mothers andfathers may be founded in familism and respect.The present study examined the association betweenperceptions of both fathers’ and mothers’ parentingand academic achievement in the same research

Family Relations � Volume 57, Number 5 � December 2008580

model, which allowed for consideration of both sim-ilarities and differences in how mothers’ and fathers’parenting relates to academic achievement (Stolz,Barber, & Olsen, 2005).

Parents in Latino immigrant families often holdhigh educational aspirations or hopes for achievementfor their offspring (Fuligni & Fuligni, 2007), whichare positively associated with academic achievement(Aldous, 2006; Kao, 2004). In turn, adolescents inimmigrant families who see their fathers and mothersas placing high value on their educational achieve-ment are more likely to value educational success andinvest time and effort toward academics that mayresult in greater academic achievement (Fuligni &Fuligni).

Interdependence in immigrant families (Fuligni& Fuligni, 2007), combined with the emphasis onfamily members as a primary source of emotionalsupport in Latino families (Coatsworth, Pantin, &Szapocznik, 2002), suggests that youth perceptions ofparental support (i.e., warmth, encouragement, affec-tion, and praise; Peterson, 2005) relate to academicachievement. Latino adolescents in immigrant fami-lies experience a solid emotional base from which toexplore their world when they perceive mothers’ andfathers’ support (Peterson). In turn, perceived sup-port explains higher academic achievement.

Adolescent perceptions of parental monitoring(i.e., parental knowledge of the adolescents’ loca-tions, friends, and activities; Jacobson & Crockett,2000) also may be related to academic achievementfor Latino adolescents in immigrant families.Research shows parental monitoring is positivelyrelated to grades (Jacobson & Crockett) and nega-tively related to dropout risk for Latino adolescents(Martinez, DeGarmo, & Eddy, 2004). Latino ado-lescents in immigrant families who perceive theirparents as investing time in gaining knowledgeabout their lives and activities (or monitoring) mayperceive such efforts as evidence of fathers andmothers protecting them from exposure to externalfactors that detract from academic endeavors.

Adolescent reports of mothers’ or fathers’ educa-tional attainment may relate to GPA for Latinoyouth in immigrant families. Using the NationalEducation Longitudinal Study of 1988, Kao (2004)established a positive relationship between parentaleducational attainment and GPA for adolescents inimmigrant families. Yet, Fuligni (1997) found thatfamily emphasis on academic success was moreimportant than socioeconomic factors in explaining

academic success for youth in immigrant families.Such conflicting results may be reconciled throughthe examination of whether variation in academicachievement traditionally attributed to family socio-economic variables (e.g., parental educational attain-ment) may be explained by neighborhood factors(Kao & Thompson, 2003) for Latino adolescents inimmigrant families.

Adolescent Factors and Academic Achievement

Beyond the contexts of neighborhoods and parenting,adolescent factors hold potential to explain the aca-demic achievement of adolescents in Latino immi-grant families. Academic motivation describes theoverall value adolescents report placing on school,efforts to meet academic responsibilities, and com-mitment to educational pursuits (Hufton, Elliott, &Illushin, 2002). Academic motivation tends to behigh among youth in immigrant families (Fuligni,1997). As Latino adolescents in immigrant familiesshare family values about the importance of academicsuccess, which may be espoused through higher aca-demic motivation, youth approach their academicwork with confidence and engagement that can beassociated with higher grades (Fuligni & Fuligni,2007).

Also, academic motivation may mediate betweenadolescents’ perceptions of mothers’ and fathers’parenting and academic achievement. This potentialmediation is illustrated through prior scholarshipthat has shown positive relationships between ado-lescent perceptions of parental monitoring and aca-demic motivation for Mexican origin adolescents(Plunkett & Bamaca-Gomez, 2003) and betweenacademic motivation and academic achievement(Jansen & Bruinsma, 2005).

The present study included two adolescent demo-graphic characteristics, adolescent gender and nativity,which may explain variation in academic achieve-ment. The few existing studies on immigrant youththat addressed adolescent gender show that girlsappear to outperform boys in academic achievementacross ethnicities (Suarez-Orozco & Qin-Hillard,2004). Girls may be advantaged in academic achieve-ment because of an ability to manage multiple tasksor see school as an opportunity to socialize outside ofthe home (Suarez-Orozco, 2001). The differentialhigh school graduation rates between native-born(87.5%) and foreign-born (67.2%) individuals over25 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004) suggest that the

Neighborhood � Henry et al. 581

academic achievement of Latino adolescents in immi-grant families may vary on the basis of whether theyouth is foreign born or born in the United States.Foreign-born adolescents in Latino immigrant fami-lies may find challenges in cultural adjustment, lan-guage issues, or less familiarity with the educationalsystem (Landale, Oropesa, & Llanes, 1998).

Hypotheses

The primary research question was whether Level 1variables (adolescents’ perceptions of neighborhoodrisk, parental factors, adolescents’ academic motiva-tion, and adolescents’ demographics) nested in theLevel 2 neighborhood context (census data at theblock group level) explained variation in the GPA ofLatino adolescents in immigrant families. The Level1 variables were examined in groups representingthe progression from distal (neighborhood) to proxi-mal (parenting, followed by adolescent) factors.First, the Level 1 hypothesis was that youth percep-tions of neighborhood risk were expected to be nega-tively related to GPA. Second, Level 1 parentingfactors were examined via the hypotheses that youthperceptions of aspects of mothers’ and fathers’ par-enting (educational aspirations for the adolescent,support, monitoring, and educational attainment)were expected to show direct positive relationshipsand indirect relationships (through academic moti-vation) to GPA. Third, Level 1 adolescent factorswere examined via the following hypotheses: youthacademic motivation was expected to be positivelyrelated to GPA, girls were expected to demonstratehigher GPA than boys, and native-born youth wereexpected to show higher GPA than foreign-bornyouth. Finally, because of the possibility that theassociation between parenting and adolescent factorson GPA might vary on the basis of structural neigh-borhood adversity or perceived neighborhood risk,these potential moderators were examined.

Method

Procedure and Sample

Participants were a subsample of 659 Latino adoles-cents from immigrant families who were part ofa larger sample of 1,074 students at one high schoolin Los Angeles. Immigrant families were defined asconsisting of at least one parent born outside of the

United States. The school selected for data collectionhad a high number of students from immigrant fam-ilies. Of the 659 Latino students, a total of 502 pro-vided complete data for the variables in this studyand were used for analyses. Follow-up tests indicatedno significant differences between the original sam-ple of Latino youth (N ¼ 659) and the reduced sam-ple (N ¼ 502) on the major variables of interestincluding GPA, neighborhood, parenting, and ado-lescent factors. Of the youth, 38% were foreign bornand 62% native born. The subsample was composedof 292 (58%) girls and 210 (42%) boys. The meanage was 14.81 (range ¼ 13 – 19).

Data were collected from three sources: (a) GPAwas collected through school records, (b) Level 1variables data and demographic data were collectedusing self-report questionnaires administered to stu-dents in a required ninth-grade course to ensurea cross-representation of students at the school, and(c) the Level 2 data were collected from census data.School record data were collected at the end of theterm in which the self-report surveys were collected.To collect self-report questionnaire data, teachersdistributed parental consent forms for their studentsto take home. A week later, the research team of fac-ulty and student research assistants (RAs) collectedsigned parental consent forms and distributed youthassent forms and self-report questionnaires at theschool. The response rate was 78%. The self-reportsurveys were in English. To ensure comprehension,participants were encouraged to ask for help withany words or phrases they did not understand. TheRAs, most of whom were fluent in multiple lan-guages (usually English and Spanish), walkedaround the classrooms during data collection to clar-ify words or phrases and answer questions. Finally,census data were collected from the American FactFinder Web page (http://factfinder.census.gov).

Measures

Dependent Variable

GPA was established using data provided by theschool data specialist for each of six classes at theend of the semester in which participants com-pleted the self-report surveys. Using a 5-point scaleranging from 0 ¼ F to 4 ¼ A, a mean GPA for eachparticipant was established. Dornbusch, Ritter,Leiderman, Roberts, and Fraleigh (1987) recom-mended using the student GPA at a specific time


as the most solid indication of current academicachievement.

Level 1 Independent Variables

Perceived neighborhood risk. Perceived neighbor-hood risk was assessed using adolescent responses toa 10-item scale assessing perceptions of risk in theirneighborhoods (e.g., low education, poverty, unem-ployment, substance use, illegal acts, violence; Sup-ple, Ghazarian, Frabutt, Plunkett, & Sands, 2006).A sample item was: ‘‘I have seen many illegal acts.’’Response choices ranged from 1 ¼ strongly disagreeto 4 ¼ strongly agree. Mean scores were computed.Previous studies using data from adolescents inLatino immigrant families (Supple et al.), or a mostlyimmigrant Latino sample (Bamaca, Umana-Taylor,Shin, & Alfaro, 2005), showed Cronbach’s alphasranging from .84 to .86, and the present data yieldeda Cronbach’s alpha of .85.

Parenting factors. For each parenting variable,adolescents responded twice, once about fathers andonce about mothers, creating two variables (i.e.,mothers’ educational aspirations for the youth andfathers’ educational aspirations for the youth). Ado-lescent perceptions of fathers’ and mothers’ educa-tional aspirations for their youth were assessed usingone item that asked the adolescents the highest levelof education each of their parents wanted them tocomplete. Response choices range from 0 ¼ no edu-cation to 11 ¼ graduate degree.

Adolescents’ perceptions of mothers’ support,fathers’ support, mothers’ monitoring, and fathers’monitoring were assessed using subscales of theParental Behavior Measure (Peterson, 1982). Thefour-item parental support subscale was used toassess youth perceptions of fathers’ support andmothers’ support. Youth perceptions of monitoring(seven items) were assessed by asking adolescents torespond about parental awareness of their activities,interests, friends, and schedule (Bush, Peterson,Cobas, & Supple, 2002). Sample items were: (a)‘‘This parent seems to approve of me and the thingsI do’’ (support) and (b) ‘‘I tell this parent who I amgoing to be with when I go out.’’ (monitoring). Par-ticipants were asked to respond about their primarymother and father figures on separate pages.Responses (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 4 ¼ strongly agree)to the items about mothers and fathers were averagedseparately to create mean scores for each subscale. Pre-vious studies support the reliability of the subscales

(Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .78 to .90) withadolescents from mostly immigrant Latino families(Bamaca et al., 2005) and Mexican American families(Plunkett & Bamaca-Gomez, 2003). Using the pres-ent data, Cronbach’s alphas were .82 for mothers’support, .86 for fathers’ support, .78 for mothers’monitoring, and .87 for fathers’ monitoring.

Parental educational attainment was assessed byasking the youth the highest educational level theirmothers and fathers completed. Education categoriesranged from 0 ¼ no education to 11 ¼ graduatedegree.

Adolescent factors. Academic motivation wasassessed by a 5-item scale that assessed adolescents’reports of effort expended on school, the importanceof grades and education, completing homework ina timely manner, and whether they like school(Plunkett & Bamaca -Gomez, 2003). A sample itemwas: ‘‘I try hard in school.’’ Responses (1 ¼ stronglydisagree to 4¼ strongly agree) were averaged. In a pre-vious study using data from Mexican American ado-lescents, the Cronbach’s alpha was .71 (Plunkett &Bamaca-Gomez), and the present data yielded analpha of .78.

The two adolescent variables, gender and nativ-ity, required the creation of dummy variables priorto data analysis. The reference category for genderwas coded as girls, and U.S. born served as the refer-ence category for nativity.

Level 2 Independent Variable

Structural neighborhood adversity was assessed by a 3-item scale consisting of 2000 U.S. Census data atthe block group level. Youth in the study occupied126 block groups and the number of participants ineach block group ranged from 1 to 33 with a mean of3.98 students in each block group. The following var-iables were downloaded and used to construct thescale: percentage of people below the poverty line, onpublic assistance, and unemployed. The structuralneighborhood adversity scale was computed by sum-ming these three items, resulting in a range for thescale being 0 ¼ least disadvantaged to 3 ¼ most disad-vantaged. A Cronbach’s alpha of .77 was established.

Analytic Approach

Multilevel random intercept regression models wereused to examine whether Level 1 variables (youthreports of neighborhood risk, parenting factors, and


adolescent factors) nested within Level 2 structuralneighborhood adversity explained variation inacademic achievement for Latino adolescents in im-migrant families. The nested nature of the data (ado-lescents within neighborhoods) means that individualerror terms may be correlated within neighborhoods,leading to potentially biased ordinary least-square esti-mates and standard errors (Raudenbush & Bryk,2002). To account for dependency among individualswithin neighborhoods, a random intercept model wasestimated by using the SAS PROC MIXEDprocedure.

ðAdolescent GPAÞij ¼ ß01 ß1ðXÞij 1 ß2ðWÞj1 ß3ðW � XÞij 1 f1 e

Individual GPA of i adolescent in j neighbor-hood (census block) was predicted by individual-level X variables, neighborhood-level W variables,and interaction terms (W � X). Random interceptmodels include error terms at the individual level(e), the cluster level (f), and their variances. Theindividual-level and neighborhood-level error termswere assumed to be uncorrelated within and acrossclusters. Cluster level error terms vary randomly onlyacross clusters. These two error terms were normallydistributed with means and variances. SAS PROCMIXED used restricted maximum likelihood esti-mation to obtain regression coefficients, individuallevel error variances, and cluster level error variances.The SAS PROC MIXED procedure allowed exami-nation of the unique contribution of the Level 2 var-iable (structural neighborhood adversity) and theunique contribution of each Level 1 variable whilecontrolling for the Level 2 structural neighborhoodadversity variable.

The analysis presents findings of both Level 1(individual-level) and Level 2 (neighborhood-level)variables to assess the unique contribution of eachon the academic achievement (GPA) of Latino ado-lescents in immigrant families. In Model 1, theunique contribution of structural neighborhoodadversity was assessed in relation to GPA. In Model2, perceived neighborhood risk (Level 1) and struc-tural neighborhood adversity (Level 2) were enteredto assess the relative association with GPA. Thisallowed the examination of the unique contributionof both Level 1 and Level 2 neighborhood factors inrelation to GPA. Model 3 added the perceived par-enting variables (educational aspirations for the

youth, mothers’ support, fathers’ support, mothers’monitoring, fathers’ monitoring, mothers’ educa-tional attainment, and fathers’ educational attain-ment) in relation to GPA. This model allowed fordetermination of the unique or direct effect of bothperceived mother and father parenting variables onGPA while controlling for all other variables inModel 3. In Model 4, adolescent factors and all pos-sible two-way interactions between neighborhoodfactors and parenting and adolescent factors wereadded simultaneously. Model 4 allowed for theexamination of whether adolescent perceptions ofmothers’ and fathers’ parenting factors were indi-rectly related to GPA through academic motivation.Also, neighborhood factors were examined as poten-tial moderators of the relationship between parent-ing and adolescent factors in relation to GPA.

Tests for multicollinearity were conductedamong all study variables, and subsequent toleranceand VIF values indicated that multicollinearity wasnot a problem. Tolerance values were consistentlylarger than .60 for all relations between independentvariables.

Results

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations,and range for each of the major variables. Table 2presents models with unstandardized regressioncoefficients predicting adolescent GPA. Model 1presents the examination of the unique contributionof structural neighborhood adversity in relation toadolescent GPA. Structural neighborhood adversitywas significantly related to a decrease in GPA (B ¼20.88, p , .01). Using Raudenbush and Bryk’s(2002) method to compute explained variance forhierarchical linear models, 5% of the variation inadolescent GPA was determined to be betweenneighborhoods.

Next, the individual-level variable, perceivedneighborhood risk, was added in Model 2. A signifi-cant negative relationship was evident between per-ceptions of neighborhood risk and GPA (B ¼ 20.31,p , .001) while controlling for the neighborhood-level variable, structural neighborhood adversity. Also,results showed that structural neighborhood adversityno longer significantly predicted GPA. The individual-level perceived neighborhood risk variable explained40% of the neighborhood-level variation in adoles-cent GPA. Additionally, perceived neighborhood risk


accounted for 4% of the individual-level variance inGPA.

In Model 3, parenting variables were entered.Perceived mothers’ educational aspirations for theiradolescents showed a significant positive associationwith GPA (B ¼ 0.12, p , .01). However, this asso-ciation was not present in terms of perceived fathers’educational aspirations and GPA. Neither perceivedmothers’ nor fathers’ support was significantly asso-ciated with adolescent GPA. However, an increasein perceived monitoring of both mothers and fatherswas significantly associated with higher GPA (B ¼0.20, p , .01 and B ¼ 0.14, p , .01, respectively).Neither mothers’ nor fathers’ educational attainmentwas significantly associated with adolescent GPA.The presence of parenting variables in Model 3 didnot significantly affect the association between per-ceived neighborhood risk and GPA and thus offeredno evidence of parenting variables mediating the

association between perceived neighborhood riskand GPA. The parenting factors in Model 3accounted for 4% of the neighborhood-level vari-ance in GPA, while accounting for 8% of the indi-vidual-level variance in GPA.

In Model 4, adolescent factors as well as all possi-ble two-way interactions between neighborhood fac-tors and parenting and adolescent factors (interactionresults not shown) were added. There was a significantpositive association between academic motivationand GPA (B ¼ 0.68, p , .001). Further, the rela-tionship between perceived mothers’ monitoring andfathers’ monitoring and GPA was mediated byacademic motivation (both mothers’ and fathers’monitoring had statistically significant coefficients inModel 3). However, neither mothers’ nor fathers’monitoring was still significantly associated withGPA when academic motivation was added in Model4. To show that academic motivation mediated theassociation between perceived parental monitoringand GPA, it was necessary to establish several condi-tions (Baron & Kenny, 1986): (a) perceived monitor-ing was significantly related to GPA (shown inModel 3), (b) the association of perceived monitoringand GPA became nonsignificant when academicmotivation was added to the model (shown in Model4), (c) academic motivation was significantly relatedto GPA (shown in Model 4), and (d) academicmotivation was significantly associated with both per-ceived mothers’ and fathers’ monitoring (B ¼ 0.26,p , .001 and B ¼ 0.11, p , .01, respectively—results not shown). In addition, boys had lower GPAsthan girls (B ¼ 20.19, p , .05). Thus, academicmotivation mediated the relationship between bothfathers’ monitoring and mothers’ monitoring andGPA.

Academic motivation and gender combined toexplain approximately 13% of the individual-levelvariance in GPA. There were no significant differen-ces in GPA by nativity. Last, examination of allpossible two-way interactions between neighbor-hood factors and parenting and adolescent factorsyielded no significant results. In Model 4, all indi-vidual-level variables accounted for 45% of theneighborhood-level variation in GPA and 25% ofthe individual-level variance in adolescent GPA.

Fit statistics in Table 2 include proportion ofboth neighborhood and individual-level varianceexplained in regards to adolescent GPA. The Akaike’sinformation criterion (AIC) values for each of thetested models are shown in Table 2. The AIC is

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for Var-iables (N ¼ 502)

M SD Range

Dependent variable

Adolescents’ grade

point average

2.20 0.94 0 – 4

Independent variables

Neighborhood factors

Structural neighborhood

adversity

0.39 0.14 0 – 3

Perceived neighborhood risk 2.19 0.52 1 – 4

Parental factors

Mothers’ educational

aspirations for youth

9.86 1.56 0 – 11

Fathers’ educational

aspirations for youth

9.80 1.78 0 – 11

Mothers’ support 3.36 0.59 1 – 4

Fathers’ support 3.06 0.78 1 – 4

Mothers’ monitoring 3.04 0.52 1 – 4

Fathers’ monitoring 2.68 0.72 1 – 4

Mothers’ educational

attainment

4.69 2.52 0 – 11

Fathers’ educational

attainment

4.89 2.51 0 – 11

Adolescent factors

Academic motivation 3.08 0.54 1 – 4

Gender (1 ¼ male) 0.42 0.49 0 – 1

Nativity

(1 ¼ foreign born)0.63 0.48 0 – 1


a measure of goodness of fit of an estimated statisticalmodel. The AIC is an operational way of trading offthe complexity of an estimated model against howwell the model fits the data (Akaike, 1974). SmallerAIC values indicate a better fit between the modeland the data. Therefore, Table 2 suggests that Model4 provides a better fit to the data than the previousmodels.

Discussion

Prior investigations of how parenting and individ-ual variables relate to the academic success ofLatino adolescents in immigrant families tend to belimited by insufficient consideration of neighbor-hoods. The current study addressed this issue byexamining the GPA of Latino adolescents in immi-grant families residing within neighborhoods. Ingeneral, structural adversity in neighborhoods is

considered a risk factor with regard to educationalsuccess (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000), andLatino adolescents in immigrant families reside instructurally disadvantaged neighborhoods at ratesdisproportionate to the broader population. Yet,the present results challenge the idea that structuralneighborhood adversity for Latino youth in immi-grant families is inversely related to GPA. Instead, theresults show that the perceptions of neighborhoodrisk by Latino adolescents in immigrant families,rather than structural neighborhood adversity, is neg-atively associated with GPA. Consistent with ecologi-cal perspectives (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), thesefindings emphasize the central role of perceptions tounderstanding neighborhood and GPA for Latinoyouth in immigrant families. These results supportSuarez-Orozco et al.’s (2008) conclusion that neigh-borhood disadvantage can easily be misunderstood inimmigrant families as professionals compare theneighborhood to standards in the United States. In

Table 2. Unstandardized Multilevel Regression Coefficients and Standard Errors of the Associations Between Neighborhood,Parent, and Adolescent Factors on Adolescent GPA (N ¼ 502)

Independent Variables

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

B SE B B SE B B SE B B SE B

Neighborhood factors

Structural neighborhood adversity 20.88 0.29** 20.13 0.29 20.04 0.28 20.06 0.26

Perceived neighborhood risk 20.31 0.07*** 20.24 0.08** 20.17 0.05**

Parenting factors

Mothers’ educational aspirations for adolescent 0.12 0.03** 0.09 0.03**

Fathers’ educational aspirations for adolescent 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.03

Mothers’ support 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.05

Fathers’ support 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.04

Mothers’ monitoring 0.20 0.06** 0.03 0.10

Fathers’ monitoring 0.14 0.04** 0.09 0.09

Mothers’ educational attainment 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02

Fathers’ educational attainment 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02

Adolescent factors

Academic motivation 0.68 0.08***

Gender (1 ¼ male) 20.19 0.07*

Nativity (1 ¼ foreign born) 0.08 0.08

Model fit statistics

Neighborhood-level variance

explained (Level 2)

0.05 0.45 0.50 0.50

Individual-level variance

explained (Level 1)

0.00 0.04 0.12 0.25

Akaike’s information criterion 1,453 1,412 1,265 1,199

*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001


contrast, some immigrant family members may per-ceive their neighborhoods as having a higher standardof living than is prevalent in their native country.Thus, ‘‘objective’’ measures of neighborhood adver-sity may obscure the ‘‘subjective’’ perceptions of ado-lescents about the relative risk in theirneighborhoods. In sum, even after controlling forstructural neighborhood adversity, perceived neigh-borhood risk effectively explains variation in GPA forLatino adolescents in immigrant families.

Consistent with findings using the National Edu-cation Longitudinal Study of 1988 (Aldous, 2006;Kao, 2004), the current results show that adoles-cents who perceive their mothers as holding highacademic aspirations have higher GPAs. This find-ing may reflect the tendency toward familism inLatino immigrant families where adolescents refer totheir mothers when establishing the importance ofeducation in their lives. Yet, this explanation doesnot address why perceptions of mothers’ but notfathers’ educational aspirations relates to GPA. Onepossibility is that gender traditions in Latino fami-lies tend to emphasize fathers providing for, protect-ing, and honoring their families and to emphasizemothers’ engagement in family roles (Alvarez,2007). Thus, mothers’ educational aspirations fortheir offspring may be an artifact of a high emphasisupon parenting roles for mothers. In turn, adoles-cents show respect to mothers by responding to theirperceived emphasis upon academic goals witha higher GPA.

Both mothers’ support and fathers’ support failedto show either direct or indirect relationships withGPA. Such results may seem to be in conflict withthe tendency of Latino immigrant family membersto turn to each other for emotional support. How-ever, Buriel’s (1993) study of Mexican origin parentsfound that both fathers and mothers in immigrantfamilies reported a greater focus on responsibility inparenting (e.g., encouraging adolescents to followrules or develop earlier self-reliance), whereas non-immigrant Mexican families emphasized greateremotional support for the youth. Given the substan-tial research supporting the role of parental supportin positive adolescent development (Peterson,2005), further studies are needed to further examinethe potential role of mothers’ and fathers’ support inGPA for Latino adolescents in immigrant families.

Not surprisingly, the current results illustratea close relationship between academic motivationand GPA for Latino adolescents in immigrant

families. Academic motivation appears to be a centralmechanism through which the optimism of Latinoimmigrant families may translate into adolescentGPA. Further, adolescent academic motivation medi-ated the relationship between both perceived fathers’and perceived mothers’ monitoring and academicachievement. Thus, Latino adolescents from immi-grant families who saw their mothers and fathers ashaving greater knowledge of their friends, where-abouts, and activities (i.e., monitoring) reportedgreater academic motivation and, in turn, showedhigher GPA.

One of the three demographic variables was sig-nificantly related to GPA. Adolescent girls showedhigher GPAs than adolescent boys. The socializationof boys and girls in families often differs (Peterson,2005), yielding different contexts of developmentand academic outcomes. Because adolescent reportsof mothers’ educational attainment, fathers’ educa-tional attainment, and nativity were not associatedwith adolescent GPA in the models, readers areencouraged to consider these findings as possiblesupport for Kao and Thompson’s (2003) idea thatneighborhood variables may explain much of thevariation in GPA traditionally attributed to familydemographic variables. Additional research is neededto verify these results when using other samples andsources (e.g., parent reports) of data about familydemographic variables.

Methodological strengths of this study inspireconfidence that perceived neighborhood risk,selected parenting variables, adolescent academicmotivation, and gender are important in explainingGPA for Latino adolescents in immigrant families.First, data were collected using census block data,self-report measures used in prior studies of Latinoadolescents in immigrant families, and schoolrecords regarding grades. Spanish-speaking RAs wereavailable to answer questions during the self-reportquestionnaire data collection. Also, by includingstructural neighborhood adversity, more definitiveconclusions can be drawn regarding how perceivedneighborhood risk relates to GPA than if the studyincluded only perceived neighborhood risk. Finally,the possibility of overlooking important cross-levelmoderators was addressed by testing all potentialcross-level moderators in relation to GPA.

However, limitations to the study also merit con-sideration. The sample size did not allow for distin-guishing among the varying cultural origins of Latinoyouth in immigrant families (Portes & Rumbaut,


2001). The use of an urban sample from one highschool in Los Angeles limits potential to generalizethe results to Latino youth in immigrant familieswith a different ecological milieu (e.g., other urban orrural areas; Crowley, Lichter, & Qian, 2006). Theself-report questionnaires were in English. The sam-ple size limits the number of respondents withineach census block group, reducing the potential forfinding significant differences in structural neigh-borhood adversity. Using cross-sectional data doesnot allow for consideration of how earlier neighbor-hood, parenting, or adolescent factors relate to lateracademic achievement. Future research recommen-dations include using a larger and geographicallydiverse sample and longitudinal data.

Implications

These results provide insights for family practi-tioners to consider regarding policies, preventions,and interventions that promote the academic successof Latino adolescents in immigrant families. Onecentral implication that emerged from this studyis that adolescents’ perceptions of their ecosystemsmay serve as the foundation for developing pro-grams. If particular areas of risk (e.g., low education,poverty, unemployment, substance use, illegal acts,or violence) are perceived as prevalent by youth inparticular neighborhoods, neighborhood-based inter-ventions geared toward improving adolescents’ adap-tations to their environments may be beneficial. Forexample, if adolescents perceive their neighborhoodto be violent, targeting programs aimed at fosteringsafety as well as educational role models within theneighborhood may improve adolescents’ adaptationto neighborhood risk. Or, providing additionalresources for security such as designated ‘‘safe pla-ces’’ may be explored to help adolescents in structur-ally disadvantaged neighborhoods feel less at risk.

Although the focus of this study was explainingacademic achievement, the results provide a compel-ling case for the importance of academic motivationto GPA for Latino youth in immigrant families.Thus, an important area for interventions to pro-mote academic motivation is parenting interventionsthat involve their offspring. Teaching monitoringskills (Gonzales, Dumka, Mauricio, & German,2007) to parents in Latino immigrant families maybe useful when educational sessions involve adoles-cents who learn to recognize parental efforts to mon-itor or protect them from specific challenges in their

environments (e.g., opportunities for engaging inrisky behavior, delinquency, crime, dropping out ofschool). This may also directly influence adolescents’perceptions of their environment as they feel moreclosely monitored and safeguarded by their families.Culturally, specific parenting interventions areneeded that include instruction in Spanish and edu-cators who are credible to the target populationbased upon an understanding of culture. A challengethat some parents in Latino families may face is lesscollective monitoring by other adults in the neigh-borhood than might be typical in their country oforigin. Thus, a parent might not realize the impor-tance of parental monitoring to guiding their adoles-cents. Alternatively, both mothers and fathers maybe working two or more jobs to provide for the fam-ily and have difficulty monitoring because of workdemands. In both cases, parent education or effortsto provide alternative mechanisms in the school orneighborhood to monitor youth may be useful pre-vention or intervention goals.

Although views of parental involvement in edu-cation focus on building active parental engagement(Epstein, 1995), the current results show that sym-bolic involvement is important. When Latino ado-lescents in immigrant families see their mothers asaspiring for the youth to progress in school, a higherGPA is more likely. This form of mothers’ involve-ment may be an asset when language barriers, unfa-miliarity with the educational system in the UnitedStates, working multiple jobs, or other challenges(Coatsworth et al., 2002) limit mothers’ abilities toengage in traditional forms of parental involvementin their adolescents’ education.

At the policy level, deliberate, guiding action isneeded not only to alleviate neighborhood risks (e.g.,decrease poverty and crime, increase educationalopportunities and employment) but also to improveneighborhood members’ abilities to address thoserisks. If Latino adolescents in immigrant families feelthat adults in their neighborhoods are invested in cre-ating a stable, functioning environment, the potentialto improve academic success may improve. In thecurrent study, Latino youths’ GPA was more closelyassociated with perceptions of neighborhoods than bythe actual context in which they lived. Community-wide initiatives aimed at integrating neighborhoods(e.g., school partnerships) and families (e.g., parent-school involvement) are advised to model positivefunctioning while providing increased resources formembers of disadvantaged, risk-prone neighborhoods.


With the increasing Latino immigrant population inthe United States, culturally sensitive policies areneeded to diminish risks that serve as barriers toacademic achievement for Latino adolescents inimmigrant families.

References

Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEETransactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716–723.

Aldous, J. (2006). Family, ethnicity, and immigrant youths’ educationalachievements. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1633–1667.

Alvarez, L. (2007). ¿Derecho u obligacion?: Parents’ and youths’ under-standing of parental legitimacy in a Mexican origin familial context.Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 29, 192–208.

Annunziata, D., Hogue, A., Faw, L., & Liddle, H. (2006). Family func-tioning and school success in at-risk, inner-city adolescents. Journal ofYouth and Adolescence, 35, 105–113.

Bamaca, M. Y., Umana-Taylor, A. J., Shin, N., & Alfaro, E. C. (2005).Latino adolescents’ perceptions of parenting behaviors and self-esteem:Examining the role of neighborhood risk. Family Relations, 54, 621–632.

Baron, M. R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable dis-tinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and sta-tistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,1173–1182.

Bass, J. K., & Lambert, S. F. (2004). Urban adolescents’ perceptions oftheir neighborhoods: An examination of spatial dependence. Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 32, 277–293.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Buriel, R. (1993). Childrearing orientations in Mexican American families:The influence of generation and sociocultural factors. Journal of Mar-riage and the Family, 55, 987–1000.

Bush, K. R., Peterson, G. W., Cobas, J. A., & Supple, A. J. (2002). Adoles-cents’ perceptions of parental behaviors as predictors of adolescent self-esteem in mainland China. Sociological Inquiry, 72, 503–526.

Coatsworth, J. D., Pantin, H., & Szapocznik, J. (2002). Familias Unidas: Afamily-centered ecodevelopmental intervention to reduce risk for prob-lem behavior among Hispanic adolescents. Clinical Child and FamilyPsychology Review, 5, 113–132.

Crowley, M., Lichter, D. T., & Qian, Z. (2006). Beyond gateway cities:Economic restructuring and poverty among Mexican immigrant fami-lies and children. Family Relations, 55, 345–360.

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., &Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescentschool performance. Child Development, 58, 1244–1257.

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., & Steinberg, L. (1991). Community influ-ences on the relation of family statuses to adolescent school perfor-mance: Differences between African Americans and non-Hispanicwhites. American Journal of Education, 99, 543–567.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi DeltaKappan, 76, 701.

Fuligni, A. J. (1997). The academic achievement of adolescents from immi-grant families: The roles of family background, attitudes, and behavior.Child Development, 68, 261–273.

Fuligni, A. J., & Fuligni, A. S. (2007). Immigrant families and the educa-tional development of their children. In J. E. Lansford, K. Deater-Deckard, & M. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Immigrant families in contemporarysociety (pp. 231–249). New York: Guildford Press.

Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., Cook, T. D., Eccles, J., Elder, G. H., Jr., &Sameroff, A. (1999). Managing to make it: Urban families and adolescentsuccess. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gephart, M. A. (1997). Neighborhoods and communities as contexts fordevelopment. In J. B. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.),

Neighborhood poverty: Vol. 1. Context and consequences for children(pp. 1–43). New York: Russell Sage.

Gonzales, N. A., Dumka, L. E., Mauricio, A. M., & German, M. (2007).Building bridges: Strategies to promote academic and psychologicalresilience for adolescents of Mexican origin. In J. E. Lansford, K.Deater-Deckard, & M. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Immigrant families in con-temporary society (pp. 268–286). New York: Guildford Press.

Halgunseth, L., Ispa, J., & Rudy, D. (2006). Parental control in Latinofamilies: An integrated review of the literature. Child Development, 77,1282–1297.

Hernandez, D. J. (2004). Demographic change and the life circumstancesof immigrant families. Future of Children, 14(2), 17–47.

Hufton, N. R., Elliott, J. G., & Illushin, L. (2002). Educational motivationand engagement: Qualitative accounts from three countries. BritishEducational Research Journal, 28, 265–289.

Jacobson, K. C., & Crockett, L. J. (2000). Parental monitoring and adoles-cent adjustment: An ecological approach. Journal of Research on Adoles-cence, 10, 65–97.

Jansen, E. P. W. A., & Bruinsma, M. E. (2005). Explaining achievement inhigher education. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11, 235–252.

Kao, G. (2004). Parental influences on the educational outcomes of immi-grant youth. International Migration Review, 38, 427–449.

Kao, G., & Thompson, J. S. (2003). Racial and ethnic stratification in edu-cational achievement and attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 29,417–442.

Landale, N. S., Oropesa, R. S., & Llanes, D. (1998). Schooling, work, andidleness among Mexican and non-Latino White adolescents. SocialScience Research, 27, 457–480.

Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in:The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent out-comes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 309–337.

Malone, N., Baluja, K. F., Constanzo, J. M., & Davis, C. J. (2003). Theforeign-born population: 2000 (U.S.D.C.E. Document No. C2KBR-34). U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Adminis-tration. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-34.pdf

Martinez, C. R. (2006). Effects of differential family acculturation onLatino adolescent substance use. Family Relations, 55, 306–317.

Martinez, C. R., DeGarmo, D. S., & Eddy, M. J. (2004). Promotingacademic success among Latino youth. Hispanic Journal of BehavioralSciences, 26, 128–151.

Ogbu, J. U. (1981). The origins of human competence: A cultural ecologi-cal perspective. Child Development, 52, 413–429.

Perreira, K. M., Harris, K. M., & Lee, D. (2006). Making it in America:High school completion by immigrant and native youth. Demography,43, 511–536.

Peterson, G. W. (1982). Parent behavior measure (Unpublished manu-script). Knoxville: University of Tennessee, Child and Family Studies.

Peterson, G. W. (2005). Family influences on adolescent development.In T. P. Gullotta & G. R. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent behav-ioral problems: Evidence-based approaches to prevention and treatment(pp. 27–55). New York: Springer.

Plunkett, S. W., Abarca-Mortensen, S., Behnke, A. O., & Sands, T.(2007). Neighborhood structural qualities, adolescents’ perceptions ofneighborhoods, and Latino youth development. Hispanic Journal ofBehavioral Sciences, 29, 19–34.

Plunkett, S. W., & Bamaca-Gomez, M. Y. (2003). The relationshipbetween parenting and adolescent academic outcomes in Mexican-ori-gin immigrant families. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25,222–239.

Pong, S. L., & Hao, L. (2007). Neighborhood and school factors in theschool performance of immigrants’ children. International MigrationReview, 41, 206–241.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrantsecond generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, S. A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reardon-Anderson, J., Capps, R., & Fix, M. (2002). The health and well-being of children in immigrant families. Series B, No. B-52. Washington,DC: The Urban Institute.

Stolz, H. E., Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (2005). Toward disentanglingfathering and mothering: An assessment of relative importance. Journalof Marriage and Family, 67, 1076–1092.


Suarez-Orozco, C. (2001). Afterword: Understanding and serving the chil-dren of immigrants. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 579–589.

Suarez-Orozco, C., & Qin-Hillard, D. B. (2004). Immigrant boys’ experiencesin U.S. schools. In N. Way & J. Y. Chu (Eds.), Adolescent boys: Exploringdiverse cultures of boyhood (pp. 295–316). New York: NYU Press.

Suarez-Orozco, C., Suarez-Orozco, M., & Todorova, I. (2008). Learninga new land: Immigrant students in American society. Cambridge, MA:Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.

Supple, A. J., Ghazarian, S. R., Frabutt, J. M., Plunkett, S. W., & Sands,T. (2006). Contextual influences on Latino adolescent ethnic identityand academic outcomes. Child Development, 77, 1427–1433.

United States Census Bureau (2004). Educational attainment in theUnited States: 2003 (Current Population Report P20-550).Retrieved October 8, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-550.pdf

United States Census Bureau (2005). School enrollment—Social and eco-nomic characteristics of students: October 2003 (Current PopulationReport P20-554). Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf

Woolley, M. E., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2006). Protective family factors inthe context of neighborhood: Promoting positive school outcomes.Family Relations, 55, 93–104.


neighborhood, parenting, and adolescent factors and academic achievement in latino adolescents from...

Documents