Mollenkopf, John and Champeny, Ana (2009) 'The Neighbourhood Context For Second-Generation Education and Labour Market Outcomes in New York'

This article was downloaded by: [HEAL-Link Consortium]
On: 9 November 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 772811123]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713433350
The Neighbourhood Context for Second-Generation Education and Labour

Market Outcomes in New York
John Mollenkopf; Ana Champeny
To cite this Article Mollenkopf, John and Champeny, Ana(2009) 'The Neighbourhood Context for Second-Generation
Education and Labour Market Outcomes in New York', Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35: 7, 1181 — 1199
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13691830903006283
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691830903006283
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Vol. 35, No. 7, August 2009, pp. 11811199
The Neighbourhood Context for

Second-Generation Education and
Labour Market Outcomes in New York
John Mollenkopf and Ana Champeny
Downloaded By: [HEAL-Link Consortium] At: 22:15 9 November 2010
Over the last five decades, immigration has profoundly transformed the population of
metropolitan New York, long divided by race and class. The almost-forgotten ‘underclass’
debate established that New York was the nation’s capital of concentrated poverty, which
grew significantly worse during the 1970s and 1980s. Though more recent data show that
New York has achieved a remarkable turnaround since 1990, most probably associated
with immigration, it remains a city of economic extremes and stubbornly high poverty.
Concern about where new immigrants*and their children*might fit into this matrix of
urban inequality led several leading social scientists to hypothesise that some members of
the second generation would be downwardly mobile. To investigate this possibility, in
1999 and 2000, the Immigrant Second Generation in Metropolitan New York (ISGMNY)
surveyed 3,415 young people aged 18 to 32 years, from five immigrant and three native-
born racial and ethnic backgrounds, about their life trajectories. This paper conducts an
analysis of the contextual effects of the neighbourhoods in which respondents grew up on
their later experiences in terms of educational attainment and labour market success.
Using OLS and HLM modelling, we find small but consistent and theoretically
interesting effects. In particular, growing up in a poor neighbourhood has a negative
effect on later outcomes, while growing up in a black neighbourhood does not, once
poverty is taken into account.
Keywords: Immigrant; Second Generation; Neighbourhood; Education; Social Context;

New York
John Mollenkopf is Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, City
University of New York, and director of its Center for Urban Research. Ana Champeny is the supervising analyst
for the Housing, Environment and Infrastructure team of the Independent Budget Office of the City of New
York and was previously a Research Associate at the Center for Urban Research. Correspondence to: Prof. J.
Mollenkopf, Center for Urban Research, CUNY Graduate Center, 365 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 1001, USA.
E-mail: jmollenkopf@gc.cuny.edu.
ISSN 1369-183X print/ISSN 1469-9451 online/09/071181-19 # 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13691830903006283
1182 J. Mollenkopf & A. Champeny
The Context
Over the last fifty years, the population of metropolitan New York has been radically
changed by immigration, as have other gateway cities like Los Angeles and Miami.
According to the March 2005 Current Population Survey, the foreign-born make up 36
per cent of the city’s population, and native-born people with one or two immigrant
parents*the second and 2.5 generations*contribute another 20 per cent. The
population group that predominates in the rest of the country*native-born whites
with native-born parents*now accounts for only 20 per cent of the city’s residents.
New York’s immigrant population is highly diverse. As in the other immigrant
gateways, people classified as Hispanic or Asian make up more than half of the
immigrant population. However, New York’s Hispanic immigrant population is
more varied than that of Los Angeles, where Mexicans comprise 40 per cent and
Salvadorans 12 per cent of the immigrant population. In New York, a group of
American citizens, Puerto Ricans, make up 9 per cent of the city’s population and 36
per cent of its Hispanic population. Foreign-born people thus make up less of the
city’s Hispanic population than in LA or other immigrant gateways. Nevertheless,
New York has attracted many people from the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico,
Colombia and other parts of Latin America. Moreover, while its large Puerto Rican
population holds US citizenship, it has also undergone a migratory process. New York
and the surrounding area contain large numbers of Chinese, Korean and Indian
immigrants as well.
New York stands out because it has also attracted many white and black
immigrants. Indeed, New York currently has almost as many white immigrants as
Hispanic ones. It received many Europeans displaced by the Holocaust and World
War II, some of whom are still living, and also attracted many emigrants from the
former Soviet Union, mostly classified as Jewish, before and after the fall of the old
regime. Finally, New York receives small but continuing flows from Italy, Ireland,
Poland and now the former Yugoslavia and Albania. Los Angeles, by contrast,
attracted large populations of Iranians and Armenians.
New York is also noteworthy for attracting black migrants from the Caribbean, a
distinction it shares with Miami and Washington. Many of its Hispanic Caribbean
migrants have significant African ancestry. The largest number, however, are
immigrants from the Anglophone West Indies and from Haiti. They have a long
history in New York City and a significant part of the city’s black population has
Caribbean roots. In earlier periods, the West Indian population tended to blend into
the larger African American one, but it has become a culturally and politically distinct
community in recent decades (Kasinitz 1992). The city’s African immigrant
population, while small relative to other immigrant groups, consistently exceeds
those of other immigrant-receiving areas. The distinction between natives and
immigrants thus cuts across each basic racial category in New York City, while
differentiating native whites and blacks from immigrant Hispanics and Asians
elsewhere in the country.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 1183
New York has a persistently high level of blackwhite segregation, surpassed only
by Detroit and a few other old industrial cities (Logan et al. 2004). The now-distant
‘underclass’ debate identified New York as the nation’s capital of concentrated
poverty, a phenomenon that worsened during the 1970s and 1980s. While more
recent data show that the city achieved a remarkable turnaround, most likely
associated with immigration (Jargowsky 1997; Jargowsky and Yang 2005), it remains
a city of great economic extremes and a stubbornly high poverty rate (New York City
Commission on Economic Opportunity 2006). While the city has rebounded
tremendously in both demographic and economic terms from its low point in the
mid-1970s, and the crime rate has fallen sharply since the early 1990s, it is still a city
in which neighbourhood contexts can pose sharp risks for young people. This was
particularly true in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when those who are now young
adults were growing up.
It is reasonable to expect that exposure to the high levels of crime and social
disorganisation associated with concentrated poverty would have negative effects on

individual development (Sampson et al. 1997, 2002). Even after controlling for
various family-background characteristics, the literature on neighbourhood effects
suggests that it should be measurably bad to grow up in New York’s poor
neighbourhoods. Certainly, studies of neighbourhood life in New York City in the
1980s and 1990s provide ample evidence of downwardly spiralling neighbourhood
populations and quality of life, great neighbourhood inequality in the distribution
and quality of public services and even the existence of ‘educational dead zones’
(Industrial Areas FoundationMetro New York and Public Education Association
1997: iii). Widespread housing abandonment and arson in the South Bronx during
the 1970s and early 1980s provided a national symbol of urban decay (Wallace and
Wallace 1998), as did the crack epidemic of the late 1980s and the violence
surrounding gang attempts to control open-air drug markets (Bourgois 1995;
Williams 1989). The turn-around of the 1990s seems all the more surprising given
these conditions.
Many scholars were concerned that new immigrants*and especially their native-
born children*would experience great difficulty if they moved into such neighbour-
hoods. Gans (1992) anticipated the possibility of ‘second-generation decline’, while
Portes and his colleagues (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Portes and Zhou 1993)
developed a theory of ‘segmented assimilation’ in which immigrant groups whom the
larger society classified as black, or who had characteristics similar to those of poor
African Americans, would face downward mobility. In this latter theory, living
among, or close to, the urban black poor would have a strong influence on second-
generation trajectories, though this might be mitigated by strength of family and
community organisation.
Drawing on William J. Wilson’s (1996) famous formulation, the segmented
assimilation hypothesis expects that male non-participation in the labour force
will have a pervasive negative impact on individual outcomes ‘where work has
disappeared’. This hypothesis also posits that the prevalence of male unemployment,
female-headed households with children, and concentrated poverty*the factors that
Wilson argues are detrimental to many inner-city African American youths*will have
a similar impact on the children of immigrants growing up in such areas, causing them
to embrace oppositional behaviours and attitudes that impede their educational
progress. These particular conditions are especially widespread in poor black
neighbourhoods, owing to the strong legacy of segregation and discrimination. Portes
and Rumbaut (2001) also argue that staying close to immigrant enclaves and not
assimilating out of step with one’s parents*such as by adopting English when they do
not*should favour educational outcomes. As a result, after taking family and
individual characteristics into account, the segmented assimilation hypothesis would
lead us to expect people growing up in neighbourhoods with higher shares of black
and Hispanic residents, greater poverty, more male unemployment, more female-
headed households and more high-school dropouts, to have lower levels of
educational attainment, while those growing up in neighbourhoods with higher levels
of immigrant concentration should do better.
The Study of the Immigrant Second Generation in Metropolitan New York

The ISGMNY study undertook a large-scale survey of the actual life trajectories being
experienced by young people from a variety of immigrant and native minority
backgrounds (Kasinitz et al. 2004, 2008). Beginning in 1999, 3,415 telephone
interviews were conducted among random samples of eight different groups of
women and men aged 18 to 32 years who were living in New York City (except Staten
Island), the inner suburban areas of Nassau and Westchester Counties, and North-
Eastern New Jersey. The immigrant-origin groups included those whose parents came
from the Dominican Republic, the South American countries of Colombia, Ecuador
and Peru, the Anglophone West Indies, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Chinese
Diaspora or the Former Soviet Union. Native groups included whites, African
Americans and Puerto Ricans. About two-thirds of those with immigrant parents
were born in the United States, mostly in New York City, while one-third were born
abroad but arrived in the US by the age of 12*though, because of the group’s recent
arrival, some of those from the Former Soviet Union were older. ISGMNY also
interviewed 10 per cent of the telephone respondents in person and reinterviewed
many of them two years later, after the 11 September attacks and the downturn in the
New York economy. Finally, we fielded six post-doctoral ethnographers for a year at
sites where second-generation and native-born young people were likely to encounter
each other, including a City University of New York (CUNY) community college, a
large public-service-employees’ union, a retail store, several Protestant churches and
community political organisations.
We asked our respondents about their family background, experiences with
schooling, entry into the labour force, jobs, cultural practices, civic engagement and
opinions about a variety of issues. Together, their responses provide the best picture
yet available of the life situations of a representative cross-section of the major racial
and ethnic groups in metropolitan New York. Because we are particularly interested
in the possibility that local social context and neighbourhood conditions might affect
their trajectories, we also asked people to identify where they had grown up, obtained
the names of the high schools and colleges they attended and identified their current
address. For those who grew up in New York City, we were able to geocode the
neighbourhoods in which they lived the longest between the ages of 6 and 18 by Zip
Code (and Public Use Microdata Areas or PUMAs). We also geocoded the 1990 and
2000 Census Tracts and PUMAs for respondents’ current places of residence.
The Main Findings of the Larger Study

While the overall findings of the study are many, varied and nuanced, its overall
message is that the second-generation groups in New York show no pervasive
evidence of downward mobility compared to their upwardly-striving parents or to
their native-born counterparts. Among those who grew up in and around New York,
the average educational attainment among the Russian and Chinese respondents
approached that of native whites, while the West Indian average exceeded that of
African Americans and the South American and Dominican averages exceed those of
Puerto Ricans (as well as African Americans). The native-born minority groups*
African Americans and Puerto Ricans*seem to suffer the most from continuing
disadvantage. Dominicans are faring the least well of the second-generation groups,
though they are doing marginally better than Puerto Ricans and African Americans.
This pattern grows stronger after controlling for age, sex, family form growing up and
parental levels of education (Kasinitz et al. 2008). For example, many Chinese
youngsters have poorly educated parents, but they obtained more education than
counterpart native whites from poorly educated families. Such outcomes seem to be
somewhat contrary to what might have been predicted by the segmented assimilation
model and have led us to develop a perspective we call ‘second-generation advantage.’
Labour market outcomes follow similar patterns, although our relatively young
respondents are just beginning their careers. Labour force participation is fairly high
across all the groups, generally a bit higher among men than women, and is lowest
among African Americans and Puerto Ricans. Working is less prevalent than might be
expected among the Chinese, Russians and West Indians because many are still
pursuing full-time studies at age 21 or above. Of the second-generation groups,
Dominicans once more fare the least well and resemble the Puerto Ricans in many
respects, although they are marginally less likely to be unemployed and more likely to
be in school. Although less likely to work, the median woman in every group is
typically earning at least as much as the median male. Mean wages are consistently
higher than median wages, however, and men tend to have higher mean earnings
than the women in their group. Males tend to hold more of the higher-paying jobs,
skewing their averages upward. Finally, the native whites, Russians and Chinese earn
significantly more than the West Indians, South Americans and African Americans,
who in turn earn more than the Dominicans, while Puerto Ricans earn the least.
Neighbourhood Contexts
To test whether the neighbourhood in which they grew up has shaped the later life
chances of our respondents, we needed to know where they lived the longest as a
child so that we could match that location with neighbourhood-level indicators from
roughly ten years prior to when we interviewed them in 2000. Since we could
establish a relatively exact 1990 geographic location only for those who grew up in
New York City, and some 1990 contextual data was only available for the city as well,
we restrict our analysis to the 2,790 respondents who grew up in the city for whom
we could identify a specific Zip Code of residence for the neighbourhood in which
they lived the longest between the ages of 6 and 18 (81.7 per cent of the total sample).
Since most of those who came from the suburbs of or from outside New York grew
up in middle-class areas, this sample retains most of those who may be at risk from
exposure to negative neighbourhood effects. At the same time, neighbourhood
circumstances within New York City vary sufficiently to provide a good basis for
analysis. Knowing the Zip Code of residence allowed us to draw neighbourhood
context indicators from the 1990 SF3 Zip Code file of the US Census, from the 1990
Public Use Microdata File (for PUMAs) and from administrative records on crime
and health patterns. In the dense neighbourhoods of New York, the Zip Code is a
more valid geographic proxy for neighbourhood than it might be in less-densely
populated cities and suburbs.
As would be expected in a highly segregated city, members of our eight study groups
tended to grow up in different kinds of places. The Puerto Ricans grew up the most
frequently in the tough, declining neighbourhoods of the South Bronx and Bushwick
and East New York in Brooklyn, but also in better areas like Sunset Park in Brooklyn.
The Dominicans mostly grew up in the denser, poorer neighbourhoods of Washington
Heights in Northern Manhattan and Corona in Queens, but some also grew up in
Bushwick and Sunset Park in Brooklyn. Washington Heights and Bushwick had a great
deal of trouble with drugs and crime in the 1980s. By comparison, the South
Americans were the most likely to grow up in middle-class Queens neighbourhoods
like Jackson Heights, Flushing, Corona and Elmhurst*a third of them grew up in
these four neighbourhoods alone. These neighbourhoods are characterised by single
family dwellings and small apartment buildings and have many Asian as well as
Hispanic residents.
African Americans were the most likely to grow up in Bedford Stuyvesant and
Brownsville in Brooklyn, West Harlem, Morissania in the South Bronx and South-
East Queens, areas which are overwhelmingly black and, with the exception of South-
East Queens, relatively poor. The West Indian young people grew up in the heavily
immigrant working-class areas of Flatbush, East Flatbush and Crown Heights in
Central Brooklyn, which had formerly been Jewish neighbourhoods. Some also grew
up in African American neighbourhoods like Bedford Stuyvesant. These neighbour-
hoods have some tough sections, but also have middle-class housing. There was more
blending of West Indians and African Americans across neighbourhoods than was
true among the Hispanic groups or between them and the black groups.
The Chinese grew up in Manhattan’s Chinatown and the Lower East Side,
Flushing, Queens and Sunset Park, Brooklyn. Flushing and Sunset Park tend to be
better off than the dense first-generation immigrant settlement in Chinatown. The
Russian Jewish respondents mainly grew up in the middle-class neighbourhoods
of South Brooklyn, including Borough Park, Bensonhurst, Brighton Beach and
Sheepshead Bay. The Chinese and Russians had less proximity to blacks than did the
Hispanic groups, but many Chinese settled near Hispanic immigrants. Finally, the
native-white New Yorkers were reared in middle-class neighbourhoods in Flushing,
Queens, Bensonhurst and Midwood in Brooklyn, and Manhattan’s Upper West Side.
Despite these selective settlement patterns, however, members of each group grew up
in a variety of neighbourhood conditions.
Table 1 uses 1990 Census Zip Code data to summarise the demographic
characteristics for the median respondent in each study group. Several patterns are
noteworthy from the perspective of segmented assimilation. First, the median child of
Russian, Chinese and South American immigrants grew up in neighbourhoods where
whites formed the majority and blacks had only a small presence; Hispanics were
generally the most prevalent group after native whites. Second, the median child of
West Indians had the highest contact with blacks (though a lower exposure to
poverty), while those of Dominicans and Puerto Ricans had the highest exposure to
poverty (and less exposure to blacks, though still more than other groups). Finally,
since the median child of African American parents grew up within segregated black
neighbourhoods characterised by high rates of poverty, poorly educated adults and
many high-school dropouts, the segmented assimilation hypothesis would predict
that they should suffer the most from negative neighbourhood contexts.
Analysis of Contextual Data

So how strongly are these contextual factors associated with individual outcomes,
independent of individual and family characteristics? To explore this question, we
added Zip Code-level characteristics to the individual- and family-background
factors which our previous multivariate analysis had shown to provide robust
explanations of individual educational attainment (we do not employ hierarchical
linear modelling at this stage because many Zip Codes contain only a few of our
respondents). While the grouping of some respondents within the same Zip Codes
will somewhat bias the coefficients on Zip Code-level variables, this procedure
nonetheless gives us a preliminary idea of the relationship of contextual factors to
individual educational outcomes.
Let us consider education first. We developed a multivariate model for the larger
study that used group membership, aspects of family form growing up (whether a
respondent has one or two parents, how educated they were, how many siblings),
orientation toward school work (use of museums and libraries, average hours of
1188
J. Mollenkopf & A. Champeny
Table 1. Demographics (1990) of neighbourhood growing up by group (percentage in zip code of median respondent except for household
income)
Pop. 25 Pop. 25 1619 High- Median
Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Post-1965 no H-S with BA or School household
Group white black Asian Hispanic foreign-born diploma more dropouts income Poverty
CEP 33.5 7.9 10.9 32.3 32.5 32.7 18.9 12.2 $29,490 13.5
DR 14.7 24.1 2.8 50.7 30.2 45.0 11.9 16.4 $21,991 28.7
PR 13.1 27.5 2.4 43.5 21.2 45.0 11.2 16.6 $21,270 28.7
WI 5.9 63.1 1.6 13.5 24.0 32.5 13.2 11.3 $26,712 18.6
NB 4.6 55.7 1.1 17.1 20.1 40.2 11.2 16.1 $20,609 28.7
CHI 45.4 5.4 18.0 20.4 35.8 37.5 19.8 10.6 $28,836 16.2
RJ 77.0 2.3 9.3 8.5 25.1 28.1 20.6 11.2 $27,234 16.9
NW 77.6 5.0 6.4 12.4 17.2 28.3 18.9 10.4 $33,913 11.9
Notes: CEPColombia, Ecuador, Peru; DRDominican Republic; PRPuerto Rico; WI Anglophone West Indies; NB Native Blacks; CHIChinese; RJRussian Jews;
NWNative Whites.
Source: 1990 Census SF3 by zip code.
homework done), whether he or she had been arrested or had become a parent,
and age and gender, to explain 28 per cent of the overall variation in educational
outcomes (see the left-hand panel of Table 2.) It is comforting to know that
individual choices count, although it is much more important not to get arrested
than to do more homework. Age is obviously a strong positive factor, matched by the
aggregate of an individual’s parents’ education (which also indicates family form,
since the education of an absent parent is coded as a zero contribution to their
combined education level). Women do consistently better than men. Once we control
for these individual and family characteristics, only Puerto Ricans and African
Americans seem to fare worse*though not statistically significantly so*than the
excluded group, the native whites, while the members of the second-generation
groups all seem to be doing statistically significantly better, especially the Chinese.
Our initial effort to include the racial composition and poverty level of the
neighbourhood in which the respondents grew up did not produce significant
coefficients for these variables (results not shown). By themselves, the per cent black
and per cent Hispanic of the Zip Code both have negative, but non-significant
relationships with educational attainment. Neighbourhood poverty has a larger
negative relationship and adding it turns the coefficients for black and Hispanic share
into positive coefficients, but the results are still not significant (not shown). The
situation did not improve when we add the Zip Code-share of post-1965 immigrants,
which also has a negative, but insignificant, relationship to educational attainment.
It is substantively worth noting, however, that the most obvious measures of
Table 2. Multivariate models (OLS) of educational attainment
Beta Sig Beta Sig.
(Constant) .000 .006

Puerto Rican .032 .203 .029 .273
Native Black .034 .200 .024 .374
Dominican .043 .050 .053 .019
West Indian .044 .059 .051 .032
South American .035 .078 .044 .032
Chinese .133 .000 .145 .000
Russian .066 .000 .077 .000
Age .227 .000 .237 .000
Female .096 .000 .095 .000
Parents’ education .227 .000 .224 .000
Siblings growing up .075 .000 .076 .000
Times moved between ages 618 .097 .000 .096 .000
Used museums and libraries .056 .002 .056 .002
Average hrs homework in High School .043 .012 .042 .016
Arrested .097 .000 .096 .000
Has had a child .263 .000 .262 .000
Zip code share of males 16 not in labour force .058 .004
Zip code share of population 5 abroad in 1985 .053 .007
Zip code share of 513s who speak English in .038 .045
linguistically isolated Spanish-speaking households
R2 .278 sig. .000 R2 .281 sig. .000
neighbourhood disadvantage*shares of minorities, immigrants and poor people*
do not have a statistically significant relationship to educational attainment.
Part of the problem may be in how we measure neighbourhood disadvantage. The
right-hand panel of Table 2 shows that different ways of measuring the impact of
immigrant and poverty concentrations do have significant negative relationships with
educational attainment. These are the share of the population aged 5 years and older
who were abroad in the previous five years, and the share of adult males not in the
labour force. The former suggests that living in a concentration of recent arrivals has
a more meaningful negative impact that just living among immigrants per se. The
latter suggests that the absence of male breadwinners has a more negative impact than
the prevalence of poverty. Finally, the table shows that the neighbourhood share of
children who live in families where the parents only speak Spanish but who have
themselves learned English well has a positive impact on educational attainment;
clearly, these children found a way around their parents’ linguistic isolation.
While these results are highly preliminary, they have some interesting implications
for the segmented assimilation hypothesis. The negative impact of the prevalence of
adult male joblessness in the neighbourhood where a respondent grew up certainly
supports this particular extension of Wilson’s argument to segmented assimilation
theory. However, the fact that growing up in poverty and in neighbourhoods with
larger populations of minority groups does not lead to significantly lower levels of
educational attainment raises doubts about segmented assimilation theory’s conten-
tion that growing up in poor, native-minority neighbourhoods will push second-
generation youngsters toward oppositional and dysfunctional behaviour. Moreover,
growing up among recent immigrants does not seem to offer much protection, while
a milieu in which children are shifting to English more rapidly than their parents
seems to help them rather than hurt them, as predicted by the segmented assimilation
theory.
Hierarchical Linear Modelling

Hierarchical linear modelling (in our study HLM 6; see Raudenbush et al. 2000) is the
most appropriate strategy for exploring the relationships between individual and
contextual factors and the outcomes of interest. This statistical technique takes into
account that individuals may be nested in an important context, such as a school or
neighbourhood. In essence, it computes regression equations within each one of the
contextual units and then compares how they vary across the units (Bryk and
Raudenbush 1992). In this way, the technique can distinguish between ‘Level 1’
effects*those of the individuals*and ‘Level 2’ effects, which may be associated with
neighbourhood context in this case. To be effective, it requires that each of the higher-
level units contains enough individuals to compute a separate regression equation
that has some degree of reliability. Since this could not be done at the Zip-Code level,
we shift our definition of neighbourhood in this part of the analysis to the PUMA in
which our respondents grew up. In New York City, PUMA boundaries closely
approximate to those of a City-designated administrative unit, the Community

Board. Since Police Precincts follow these boundaries, we can also aggregate precinct-
level data on crime patterns from 1990 to the PUMA level, broadening our analysis
beyond Census statistics. Finally, we could also aggregate 1994 hospital admissions
data (including injuries from assaults or drug-related illness) to this level. This gives
us a much better grasp of the levels of risk that our respondents might have
experienced growing up.
The first model is a random-effects model with no predictors (Table 3). Essentially,
this model predicts the educational outcome of a student based on the average
neighbourhood educational outcome (coefficient of 5.66)*the fixed effect*plus
measures for the variance between neighbourhoods (coefficient of 0.51) and between
respondents within neighbourhoods (coefficient of 6.20). These two latter variance
measures can be summed to represent the total variance in educational outcome.
Each variance component’s share of the total variance represents how much variation
may be due to individual or to neighbourhood effects. Most of the variance (92 per
cent) is between individuals within neighbourhoods, with the remaining 8 per cent
being between neighbourhoods. This result supports the findings of the OLS
regression that the contextual effects are less significant than the individual and
family characteristics, but it nonetheless confirms that context does, in fact, count.
The model in Table 4 is a random-intercept regression model with Level 1 variables
to predict individual educational outcomes within neighbourhoods. The model is
thus-named because only the Level 2 equation for the intercept has an error term.
This model assumes that the Level 1 (individual) effects are the same across all
neighbourhoods. For example, if we find that being female has a positive relationship
with getting more education, the model assumes that this positive relationship is the
same in all the neighbourhoods. Additionally, this model does not yet test specific
neighbourhood effects because we have not added any neighbourhood characteristics.
In this model, the predicted educational outcome for a native-white, male, single
respondent of average age (within the neighbourhood), from a two-parent family,
who has not moved during his childhood, has not had a child and has not been
Table 3. Random effects (no predictors) Level 1 dependent variable: educational
outcome
Level 1 model: Yij B0jrij
Level 2 model: B0j G00u0j
Mixed/combined model: Yij G00u0jrij
Fixed effects Coefficient Standard error

(00) 5.6592 0.1319
Random effects Variance component Standard deviation
F2 (var(rij)) 6.20043 2.49007
I00 (var(u0j)) 0.51278 0.71609
Total variance 6.71321
Table 4. Fixed and random effects at Levels 1 and 2 on educational outcomes
Fixed effects Coefficient Standard error T-Ratio d.f. Sig.
Intercept B0
Intercept G0 0 6.428043 0.206427 31.14 49 0.000
Dominican Republic B1
Intercept G1 0 0.045559 0.178647 0.255 2737 0.799
Puerto Rican B2
Intercept G2 0 0.619745 0.161556 3.836 2737 0.000
West Indian B3
Intercept G3 0 0.048983 0.220666 0.222 2737 0.825
Native Black B4
Intercept G4 0 0.456037 0.158262 2.882 2737 0.004
Chinese B5
Intercept G5 0 1.462759 0.191052 7.656 2737 0.000
Russian B6
Intercept G6 0 0.599222 0.207258 2.891 2737 0.004
Age (group-centred) B7
Intercept G7 0 0.196065 0.014566 13.461 2737 0.000
Female B8
Intercept G8 0 0.678371 0.116476 5.824 2737 0.000
Moves between 618 years old B9
Intercept G9 0 0.080871 0.028156 2.872 2737 0.005
No father figure B10
Intercept G10 0 0.636719 0.17297 3.681 2737 0.000
Single-parent household B11
Intercept G11 0 0.438999 0.123908 3.543 2737 0.001
Mother’s education (group-centred) B12
Intercept G12 0 0.450794 0.052011 8.667 2737 0.000
Father’s education (group-centred) B13
Intercept G13 0 0.289102 0.065807 4.393 2737 0.000
Is a parent B14
Intercept G14 0 1.166943 0.16051 7.27 2737 0.000
Is/was a teenage parent B15
Intercept G15 0 0.600898 0.169658 3.542 2737 0.001
Has been arrested B16
Intercept G16 0 0.752398 0.181126 4.154 2737 0.000
Number of siblings grew up with B17
Intercept G17 0 0.085833 0.030014 2.86 2737 0.005
Random effects
Level 1 R 4.61771 2.149
Level 2 U0 0.30142 0.549 182.32 49 0.000
arrested is 6.4 on an ordinal scale of attainment from 0 to 12 (we refer to this

predicted value, the intercept of the Level 1 model, as the ‘baseline’ predicted
educational outcome). The model includes six dummy variables for the second-
generation group (with native whites as the excluded group). It shows that outcomes
for Dominicans and West Indians are not statistically significantly different from
those of the native-white male baseline. Being Puerto Rican reduces educational
attainment by six-tenths of a point, while being African American reduces it by
slightly less than half a point. On the other hand, being Chinese lifts educational
attainment by almost 1.5 points. Russians are also doing significantly better than the
native-white baseline, with the coefficient showing an increase of 0.6 points.
It was important to control for age, as many of our survey respondents were still of
school age. Age was group-centred, with each year of age above the average of
respondents in the neighbourhood being associated with a .19 increase in educational
attainment. Being female has a fairly strong positive effect on educational attainment,
with a coefficient of 0.68. Mobility during childhood, measured as the number of
moves between the ages of 6 and 18, is negatively associated with educational
outcome. Growing up in a single-parent household is also negatively associated with
it, but not having a father figure paradoxically has a positive coefficient of 0.64. The
number of siblings a respondent grew up with has a coefficient of 0.09.
Centred parental educational attainment also helps us to capture the effect of
having more- or less-educated parents than the average mother or father. Higher
educational attainment among either the father or the mother is positively associated
with the respondent’s educational attainment. The effect is stronger for increases in
maternal education (0.45 compared to 0.29). Since father’s educational attainment
was centred and not having a father was given the lowest value, it appears that the
coefficient for no father figure might be positive partly to offset the negative effect of
this variable. Having had a child, however, is negatively associated with educational
attainment, with a coefficient of 1.17. Having become a parent as a teenager has a
further negative effect on attainment of 0.60. Ever having been arrested is also
negatively associated with educational outcome.
These coefficients all closely parallel those of the individual-level model presented
in the previous section. It is noteworthy that being West Indian or Dominican does
not carry a statistically significant penalty relative to being a white native, while being
African American or Puerto Rican does. Being Chinese or Russian brings a benefit.
The interaction between single-parent households, lacking father figures and paternal
education also appears complex. We can compare the Level 1 variance in this model
with that in the random-effects model to estimate the proportion of the variance we
have explained. The Level 1 variance decreases from 6.20043 to 4.61771, a decline of
26 per cent from that in the model with no predictors (see bottom of Table 4). Again,
this finding is similar to the R2 value for the OLS regression in the previous section.
We then use the random-intercept model described above as a base from which to
test whether specific Level 2 neighbourhood characteristics exert a common influence
on all individuals, separate from the effect of the previously modelled individual
characteristics (the next three models discussed are not presented in tables). In this
step, we keep the Level 1 equation and add neighbourhood variables to more fully
specify the model for the Level 1 intercept. It is still a random-intercept model
because the variation is limited to modelling the Level 1 intercept, not the individual
slope coefficients in the Level 1 model. The Level 1 intercept equation contains its
own intercept and additional terms for the Level 2 variables. In other words, the
intercept for Level 1 (the base predicted education outcome) now varies across
neighbourhoods as a function of neighbourhood characteristics, while the individual
effects remain the same in all the neighbourhoods,
We test the impact of three different neighbourhood features (details of the analysis
not shown in the tables). First, we look at the relationship between the variation in
the neighbourhood’s black population and the variation in educational outcome. In
addition to looking at the non-Hispanic black share of the PUMA, we considered the
level of black/white and Hispanic/black segregation.1 In its most straightforward
form, the segmented assimilation hypothesis views African Americans as having been
subjected to the worst forms of discrimination and social exclusion, and therefore as
having developed the most negative reactions to this restricted opportunity structure.
The hypothesis would seem to predict that growing up among them would therefore
have a negative impact on individual educational outcomes. In fact, however, just as
in the OLS model above, this model shows that people growing up in neighbour-
hoods with higher shares of non-Hispanic black residents did not have different
educational outcomes from those growing up in neighbourhoods with lower shares.

The coefficient for the percentage of the neighbourhood that was non-Hispanic black
was 0.0021 (p .414), suggesting that the average educational attainment score
being modelled by the intercept would decrease by only .11 if the share ‘non-Hispanic
black’ rose by 50 percentage points. The indices for black to white and black to
Hispanic segregation were also not significant, either together or individually. This
model rejects the hypothesis that growing up in a segregated black neighbourhood
would exert a negative influence on outcomes.
Second, we once more considered the effect of poverty level. We centred the
poverty variable around the average poverty rate for the 50 neighbourhoods*20 per
cent. In this approach, the poverty rate has a more significant impact on a
neighbourhood’s average educational attainment than we found in the OLS
approach. The coefficient for the centred poverty rate was 0.015 (p.007). In a
neighbourhood with average poverty, respondents had an educational attainment of
6.40 (6 is some college, no degree). In a low-poverty neighbourhood (5 per cent was
the low end of the range), respondents’ educational attainment increases to 6.63,
while it declines to 5.94 in the highest poverty PUMAs (51 per cent). This finding
shows that neighbourhood poverty diminishes educational attainment among youth
growing up there.
Third, we looked at the incidence of neighbourhood risks using the murder and
the felony assault rates (per 100,000 each), and the number of drug-overdose hospital
admissions. We centred all three measures. When considered individually, the murder
rate approached significance (p .0645), the felony assault rate was significant and
drug-overdose admissions were not. When we enter all three together, the murder
rate is completely insignificant and the other two measures were not significant. On
their own, only the felony assault rate is significant. Its coefficient was 0.000333
(p0.030). In our community areas it ranged from 130 to 1,991 per 100,000 people,
with a mean of 663 and a standard deviation of 498. Based on this model, the
predicted average educational outcome should improve by 0.167 when the felony
assault rate declines by about 1 standard deviation (rounded up to 500 assaults). The
models suggest that prevalence of neighbourhood violence, as measured by felony
assault rate, is negatively associated with educational outcomes of youth.
However, testing these factors individually can miss effects that are brought out by
the multivariate model presented in Table 5. We investigated a large set of Level 2
variables chosen to reflect different theories about neighbourhood effects. First, we
used the (uncentred) share of non-Hispanic black residents to investigate the effect of
living in a black neighbourhood. To look at segregation, we tested indices of black to
white and black to Hispanic segregation for each neighbourhood. Since immigration
is a central focus of our larger study, we used the neighbourhood’s post-1965 foreign-
born population in the Level 2 models as well as an index of native- to foreign-born
segregation. The shares of the neighbourhood’s population who were of the
predominant study groups (Dominican, Puerto Rican, West Indian and Chinese)
were also tested. All these indicators were left uncentred.
Since the educational make-up of the neighbourhood might also be a factor, we

used two additional Level 2 centred measures: the share of the population over 25
with a college degree and the percentage of the population between 6 and 18 years of
age who were enrolled in school. Since concentrated poverty is so commonly cited,
we used the poverty rate (centred) at Level 2 as well as the share of households headed
by a single, female parent*since the presence of a father figure and being in a single-
parent household were predictors at Level 1, we wanted to explore the effects at the
neighbourhood level as well. The last set of measures considered the felony assault
rate and the number of drug-overdose hospital admissions, both variables of which
were centred.
In the end, the Level 2 variance declined from .30142 in the random-intercept
model with no Level 2 predictors to .15155 in the model with Level 2 predictors for
the intercept. This decline suggests that the six significant neighbourhood-level
variables explained half the Level 2 variance. The results are presented in Table 5. The
base or intercept of the Level 2 equation for the Level 1 intercept (shown as g00) is
7.06. This means that, in a community area with no non-Hispanic black population,
post-1965 foreign-born population or foreign- to native-born segregation, and with
average child school enrolment, felony assault rate, and drug-overdose admissions,
the individual educational attainment would be just over 7 (which is graduating after
two years at college). At this point, however, the coefficient for the neighbourhood’s
non-Hispanic black population is positive, suggesting that, after controlling for all
other neighbourhood factors, neighbourhoods with more non-Hispanic black
residents actually have higher educational outcomes. However, the coefficient is
small and each 10-point increase in the share ‘non-Hispanic black’ is only associated
with a 0.08 increase in the educational outcome. This finding provides even stronger
evidence that living in urban areas with black neighbours does not necessarily lead to
lower educational outcomes.
Our model found evidence that respondents had lower educational outcomes
when they grew up in neighbourhoods with large immigrant populations and greater
Table 5. Random-intercept model: fixed and random effects at Levels 1 and 2 on
educational outcome
Fixed effects Coefficient Std Error T-Ratio d.f. Sig.
Intercept B0
Base G0 0 7.061996 0.406915 17.355 43 0
Share non-Hispanic Black G0 1 0.008346 0.002602 3.208 43 0.003
Share post-1965 foreign-born G0 2 0.018887 0.006214 3.039 43 0.004
Share of 618 years enrolled in school G0 3 0.089729 0.039929 2.247 43 0.03
Felony assault rate (per 100,000) G0 4 0.000767 0.000146 5.267 43 0
Drug-overdose hospital admissions, 1994 G0 5 0.013225 0.004185 3.16 43 0.003
Native-born to foreign-born
segregation index (1100 scale) G0 6 0.022441 0.010384 2.161 43 0.036
Dominican Republic B1
Intercept G1 0 0.112103 0.182927 0.613 2731 0.54
Puerto Rican B2
Intercept G2 0 0.584219 0.153718 3.801 2731 0
West Indian B3
Intercept G3 0 0.013327 0.22379 0.06 2731 0.953

Native Black B4
Intercept G4 0 0.402218 0.159854 2.516 2731 0.012
Chinese B5
Intercept G5 0 1.549864 0.199222 7.78 2731 0
Russian B6
Intercept G6 0 0.674197 0.216738 3.111 2731 0.002
Age (group-centred) B7
Intercept G7 0 0.196285 0.014648 13.4 2731 0
Female B8
Intercept G8 0 0.67184 0.116756 5.754 2731 0
Moves between ages 618 years old B9
Intercept G9 0 0.077703 0.028119 2.763 2731 0.006
No father figure B10
Intercept G10 0 0.657049 0.171496 3.831 2731 0
Single-parent household B11
Intercept G11 0 0.44925 0.124851 3.598 2731 0.001
Mother’s education (group-centred) B12
Intercept G12 0 0.447747 0.05136 8.718 2731 0
Father’s education (group-centred) B13
Intercept G13 0 0.289402 0.065752 4.401 2731 0
Is a parent B14
Intercept G14 0 1.165199 0.162742 7.16 2731 0
Is/was a teenage parent B15
Intercept G15 0 0.590741 0.169514 3.485 2731 0.001
Has been arrested B16
Intercept G16 0 0.728322 0.178379 4.083 2731 0
Fixed effects Coefficient Std Error T-Ratio d.f. Sig.
Number of siblings grew up with B17

Intercept G17 0 0.085681 0.030018 2.854 2731 0.005
Random effects Variance component Std dev. Chi-square d.f. Sig.
Level 1 R 4.6219 2.14986

Level 2 U0 0.15155 0.3893 182.32135 106.5 0.000
segregation between immigrants and the native-born. A post-1965 foreign-born

population of 10 per cent is negatively associated with a decline of 0.18 in the
educational outcome index. As native to foreign-born segregation increases, expected
educational outcomes also decline*a 10-point increase (on a 100-point index)
would result in a 0.22 decline. Meanwhile, growing up in neighbourhoods where
more 618-year-olds are enrolled in school is positively associated with educational
outcome. Since this measure does not have a large range, a 3-point increase above the
average (88 per cent) would increase the educational attainment index by about a
quarter of a point.
The felony assault rate and drug-overdose hospital admissions have opposite signs.
A 1 standard deviation increase in the felony assault rate over the average (500
assaults per 100,000 people) is associated with a drop of 0.384 in the educational
outcome index. Paradoxically and unexpectedly, a 1 standard deviation increase in
hospital admissions for drug overdoses above the average is associated with a .2645
increase in the educational attainment index.

To summarise, the random-intercept model shown in Table 5 suggests that growing
up in neighbourhoods with more non-Hispanic blacks is not associated with lower
educational outcome but is, in fact, the opposite. Growing up among post-1965
immigrants or where segregation is greater between foreign-born and native-born
residents both have negative effects on educational outcomes. In other words, growing
up within a first-generation immigrant enclave has a negative effect on educational
outcomes, not the positive one that segmented assimilation theory posits may come
about. Higher school enrolment in the neighbourhood also has a positive relationship
with educational outcomes. The two risk measures counteract each other (they have a
correlation of .512). Higher-than-average felony assault rates have the expected
negative relationship with educational outcome (an effect twice as strong as in a
model that only had felony assaults as a predictor). Paradoxically, however, the drug-
overdose admissions rate has a positively signed coefficient. Other Level 2 variables
did not change the direction or significance of the Level 1 predictors. Though
neighbourhood poverty was statistically significant when considered on its own, it is
not significant when considered in conjunction with all the other variables. This
suggests that we must be more explicit about the exact mechanisms by which we
believe growing up in settings of deprivation dampens educational attainment*we
cannot subsume them under the broader category of the incidence of low incomes.
Conclusion
While this analysis is no more than an initial foray into understanding how growing
up in different neighbourhood contexts might affect the later trajectories of the
young adults we have interviewed in the Immigrant Second Generation in
Metropolitan New York Study, it does support some preliminary conclusions. First
of all, we believe that context does count. Both the OLS regressions bringing in Zip-
Code data and the hierarchical models of the PUMA data indicate that contextual
factors can have a clear and significant impact on individual educational outcomes.
These impacts are far weaker than those of individual and family characteristics, just
as we would expect them to be. At the same time, they are meaningful.
Second, living amidst poverty and associated conditions, such as male non-
participation in the labour force, has a more negative impact than simply living in a
black or Hispanic minority neighbourhood. Moreover, growing up in a first-
generation zone of immigrant concentration also seems to have a negative impact on
individual educational outcomes, net of many individual and family characteristics.
Growing up surrounded by youngsters who speak English even when their parents do
not is positively associated with individual educational attainment. This seems to run
counter to the idea posed by Portes and Rumbaut that ‘dissonant acculturation’ will
lead to bad educational outcomes. On the other hand, growing up in an area with
high crime rates clearly has a negative impact*although perhaps not as large as we
might have expected*while the incidence of drug-overdose admissions (admittedly
perhaps not a good measure) has an unexpected positive, if weak, effect.

Third, even after controlling for family and neighbourhood background char-
acteristics, individual actions play a strong role in determining individual outcomes,
particularly in terms of avoiding arrest or parenthood, and going to the library and
doing homework. While these are not as important as being born to better-educated
parents who produced fewer siblings and raised them with less geographic mobility, it
is important to know that effort counts. Moreover, the suggestion that parental
choices to seek to raise their children in neighbourhoods where many other people
are making these same choices finds support in our analysis. Finally, and most
troubling, we find, just as we did when looking at individual factors alone, that being
African American or Puerto Rican continues to carry an educational attainment
penalty, while belonging to a second-generation minority group does not. We can
only conclude that the dominant society continues to create barriers for African
Americans and Puerto Ricans that other groups have managed to find their way
around. The only silver lining in this dark cloud is that, contrary to that predicted by
the segmented assimilation hypothesis, second-generation youngsters seem able to
draw on individual, family and community resources in order to avoid the negative
outcomes associated with growing up in poor and dangerous neighbourhoods. It is
disheartening to see that many members of native minority groups do not.
Acknowledgements
This paper was originally given at the conference Local Contexts and the Prospects for
the Second Generation held at the West Coast Poverty Research Center, University of
Washington, 1920 October 2006. We are deeply grateful for financial support from
the Russell Sage Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the
Mellon Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the United Jewish Appeal-Federa-
tion and the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development. We also
thank Henry Brady, Gunnar Almgren and Mark Ellis for constructive criticism of a
previous version of this paper.
Note
[1] The segregation indices were calculated based on the formula for an index of dissimilarity
(see http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/imiyares/Segregation.htm). The value for each
neighbourhood (PUMA) was based on the census tracts contained within that PUMA.
References
Bourgois, P. (1995) In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Bryk, A. and Raudenbush, S. (1992) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis
Methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Gans, H. (1992) ‘Second generation decline: scenarios for the economic and ethnic futures of the
post-1965 American immigrants’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 15(2):17393.
Industrial Areas FoundationMetro New York and Public Education Association (1997) Futures
Denied: Concentrated Failure in the New York City Public School System. New York: IAFMNY
and PEA.
Jargowsky, P. (1997) Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Jargowsky, P. and Yang, R. (2005) ‘The ‘‘underclass’’ revisited: a social problem in decline’.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Working Paper, May.
Kasinitz, P. (1992) Caribbean New York: Black Immigrants and the Politics of Race. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Kasinitz, P., Mollenkopf, J. and Waters, M. (eds) (2004) Becoming New Yorkers: Ethnographies of the
New Second Generation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kasinitz, P., Mollenkopf, J., Waters, M. and Holdaway, J. (2008) Inheriting the City: The Children
of Immigrants Come of Age. New York: Harvard University Press and the Russell Sage
Foundation.
Logan, J., Stults, J. and Farley, R. (2004) ‘Segregation of minorities in the metropolis: two decades of
change’, Demography, 41(1): 122.
New York City Commission on Economic Opportunity (2006) Increasing Opportunity and Reducing
Poverty in New York City. New York: Office of the Mayor.
Portes, A. and Rumbaut, R. (2001) Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press; New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Portes, A. and Zhou, M. (1993) ‘The new second generation: segmented assimilation and its
variants among post-1965 immigrant youth’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 530: 7496.
Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A, and Congdon, R. (2000) HLM 6: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear
Modeling (Version 6.02a). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S. and Earls, F. (1997) ‘Neighbourhoods and violent crime: a multilevel
study of collective efficacy’, Science, 277: 918924.
Sampson, R., Morenoff, J. D. and Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002) ‘Assessing ‘‘neighbourhood effects’’:
social processes and new directions in research’, Annual Review of Sociology, 28: 44378.
Wallace, D. and Wallace, R. (1998) A Plague on Your Houses: How New York was Burned Down and
National Public Health Crumbled. New York: Verso.
Williams, T. (1989) The Cocaine Kids. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Wilson, W. (1996) When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Random
House.

Mollenkopf, John and Champeny, Ana (2009) 'The Neighbourhood Context For Second-Generation Education and Labour Market Outcomes in New York'

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Mollenkopf, John and Champeny, Ana (2009) 'The Neighbourhood Context For Second-Generation Education and Labour Market Outcomes in New York'

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

This article was downloaded by: [HEAL-Link Consortium]

On: 9 November 2010

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

The Neighbourhood Context for Second-Generation Education and Labour

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

The Neighbourhood Context for

Keywords: Immigrant; Second Generation; Neighbourhood; Education; Social Context;

ISSN 1369-183X print/ISSN 1469-9451 online/09/071181-19 # 2009 Taylor & Francis

disorganisation associated with concentrated poverty would have negative effects on

of immigrant concentration should do better.

The Study of the Immigrant Second Generation in Metropolitan New York

The Main Findings of the Larger Study

Analysis of Contextual Data

(Constant) .000 .006

Hierarchical Linear Modelling

approximate to those of a City-designated administrative unit, the Community

Level 2 model: B0j G00u0j

Mixed/combined model: Yij G00u0jrij

Fixed effects Coefficient Standard error

arrested is 6.4 on an ordinal scale of attainment from 0 to 12 (we refer to this

educational outcomes from those growing up in neighbourhoods with lower shares.

Since the educational make-up of the neighbourhood might also be a factor, we

Intercept G3 0 0.013327 0.22379 0.06 2731 0.953

Fixed effects Coefficient Std Error T-Ratio d.f. Sig.

Number of siblings grew up with B17

Random effects Variance component Std dev. Chi-square d.f. Sig.

Level 1 R 4.6219 2.14986

segregation between immigrants and the native-born. A post-1965 foreign-born

increase in the educational attainment index.

perhaps not a good measure) has an unexpected positive, if weak, effect.

También podría gustarte