Content uploaded by William Perez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by William Perez on Feb 10, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Academic Resilience Among
Undocumented Latino
Students
William Perez
Claremont Graduate University, CA
Roberta Espinoza
California State University, Fullerton
Karina Ramos
University of Missouri, Columbia
Heidi M. Coronado
Claremont Graduate University, CA
Richard Cortes
Glendale Community College, CA
This study examined the academic resilience of undocumented immigrant
Latino students. It was hypothesized that due to their legal and social mar-
ginalization, students who experienced high risk accompanied by high levels
of both personal and environmental protective factors would have higher
academic outcomes than students with lower levels of these protective
resources. The results from regression and cluster analyses (N = 104) indi-
cated that despite specific risk factors (e.g., elevated feelings of societal
rejection, low parental education, and high employment hours during school)
undocumented students who have high levels of personal and environmental
protective factors (e.g., supportive parents, friends, and participation in
school activities) report higher levels of academic success than students with
similar risk factors and lower levels of personal and environmental resources.
The results also suggested variability in risk exposure among undocu-
mented students with some students reporting low levels of risk accompa-
nied by high levels of personal and environmental protective factors.
Keywords: civic engagement; undocumented; immigrant; Latino; minority
students
A
ccording to Passel (2006), in 2005 there were 1.8 million undocu-
mented youth under the age of 18 living in the United States. Latinos
represent approximately 78% of this undocumented population. Each year,
Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences
Volume XX Number X
Month XXXX xx-xx
© 2009 SAGE Publications
10.1177/0739986309333020
http://hjbs.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
1
2 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
approximately 80,000 undocumented students reach high school graduation
age. Of these high school graduates, approximately 13,000 enroll in public
colleges and universities across the country (Passel, 2006). Not only do
these students endure the same stressors and risk factors as other Latino and
immigrant youth, they also face constant institutional and societal exclusion
and rejection due to their undocumented status. They are not eligible for
most scholarships, do not qualify for any form of government sponsored
financial assistance, are not eligible to apply for a driver’s license, are
legally barred from formal employment, and may be deported at any time.
The social, educational, and psychological experiences of these immigrant
youth raise a number of important questions: What specific social and envi-
ronmental characteristics mediate their school success in the presence of
numerous factors that place them at risk for low achievement? And how can
the risk and resilience framework help us better understand the academic
achievement patterns of undocumented immigrant Latino youth?
Immigrant Youth
Migration is one of the most radical transitions and life changes an
individual or family can endure. For immigrant children, the migration
experience fundamentally reshapes their lives as familiar patterns and ways
of relating to other people dramatically change. Some potential stressors
related to migration include loss of close relationships, housing problems,
a sense of isolation, obtaining legal documentation, going through the
acculturation process, learning the English language, negotiating their
ethnic identity, changing family roles, and adjusting to the schooling
experience (Garza, Reyes, & Trueba, 2004; Igoa, 1995; Portes & Rumbaut,
2001; Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 2001; Zhou, 1997).
With respect to Latino immigrant youth, research suggests a host of
sociocultural experiences related to the acculturation process are extremely
stressful (Cervantes & Castro, 1985). Using the Hispanic Children’s Stress
Inventory, Padilla and his colleagues (Padilla, 1986; Padilla, Cervantes,
Maldonado, & Garcia, 1988) identified several potentially stressful events
for Hispanic children and adolescents which included leaving relatives and
friends behind when moving, feeling pressured to speak only Spanish at
home, living in a home with many people, and feeling that other kids make
Authors’ Note: Address correspondence to William Perez, Claremont Graduate University,
150 E. Tenth Street, Claremont, CA 91711; e-mail: william.perez@cgu.edu.
Perez et al. / Resilient Undocumented Students 3
fun of the way they speak English. Kurtines and Miranda (1980) also suggest
that differences in Hispanic children’s self and family role expectations can
often lead to intrafamilial tensions and conflicts. Discrepancies in the values
and practices of Hispanic children and their parents may create pressure in
selecting which set of cultural norms and expectations to adhere to, those of
their culture of origin or those of mainstream culture.
Undocumented Immigrant Students
Although literature exists on first and second generation immigrants, there
is a lack of research on the undocumented immigrant student population. In
one of only a handful of studies, Dozier (1993) found three central emotional
concerns for undocumented college students: fear of deportation, loneliness,
and depression. Dozier found that students’ fear of deportation was so central
to undocumented students; it influenced almost every aspect of their lives.
Some students reported being afraid of going to hospitals because they
worried that their immigration status would be questioned. Because their
legal status made it impossible to obtain work authorization, they were
sometimes forced to stay in bad work conditions because they feared not
being able to find another job. In addition, undocumented students were
often reluctant to develop close emotional relationships with others for fear
of their undocumented status being discovered. Despite these stressors, the
undocumented students in Dozier’s study managed to accumulate the
necessary academic record to be accepted into college. How did they manage
such accomplishments in the face of numerous obstacles?
In a qualitative study of 10 undocumented male Mexican college students,
De Leon (2005) described relationships with school counselors and teachers
as being particularly important sources of information and guidance. Students
also noted teachers who treated them negatively, and similar to Dozier’s
(1993) study, reported an ongoing sense of isolation and fear. Although they
recognize all the obstacles they faced due to their undocumented status,
participants still expressed a high level of optimism and perseverance.
In another qualitative study focusing on undocumented female Mexican
college students, Munoz (2008) reported that these young women had both
positive and negative experiences with teachers and other school agents.
Most of the information that students received about applying to college
however, did not come from school agents, but rather from adults in the
community. Despite high levels of economic hardship, participants reported
4 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
high parental involvement and support for school, particularly from
mothers. Language brokering (Buriel, Perez, De Ment, Chavez, & Moran,
1998) was described as a positive experience, while ethnic identity formation,
stereotypes about Mexicans, and negotiating gender role expectations with
their parents were described as stressors. Although they had observed it,
participants reported not having personally experienced discrimination.
All respondents reported frustration, helplessness, shame, and fear due to
their undocumented status, but they also reported being highly involved
on campus in extracurricular activities as a way to feel a sense of belonging.
In college, support from faculty and staff was a key environmental protec-
tive factor.
Gonzalez, Plata, Garcia, Torres, and Urrieta’s (2003) ethnographic research
also highlights undocumented youths’ various environmental risk and pro-
tective factors. For example, a young woman who grew up in a household
with three other siblings and a single mother recalls the pivotal role played
by her 8th grade English teacher who recommended her for the Honors
program. She eventually participated in various extracurricular activities
and aspired for admission to an Ivy League school. Despite her high level
of involvement, her grade point average (GPA) reached a stellar 4.38 until
she found out she was undocumented. Afterward, she discontinued most of
her activities, dropped her Honors and advanced placement (AP) courses
and her GPA fell to 2.5. A third student cites supportive 8th grade teachers
on the one hand, and a lack of support from her high school counselor who
questioned her academic abilities and refused to place her in academically
rigorous courses on the other.
Oliverez’s (2006) qualitative research with Latino undocumented high
school seniors finds that although families appeared to support students
aspirations to attend college, the home environments were not always
conducive to college preparation. In addition to caring for younger siblings,
the crowded nature of their family’s small rented apartment meant that
these students often did their homework away from home, secluded
themselves in a corner, or waited until everyone was asleep to get their
work done. None of the students described having a separate room in their
homes where they could find adequate quiet and space to study. In all, 60%
lived in crowded homes with 6 or more people, and 90% lived in single or
studio apartments where everyone slept in the same room.
Oliverez (2006) also found that despite parents’ limited education and
familiarity with the U.S. educational system, half of participants reported
that their hard work and sacrifices motivated them to pursue higher
Perez et al. / Resilient Undocumented Students 5
education. Whereas some students attributed their lack of academic success
to not having enough time or being too busy to complete their schoolwork
to the best of their ability, others held jobs that sometimes left them too tired
to focus on school. A total of 60% reported working after school or on the
weekends between 16 and 40 hours per week, while 60% participated in
athletic teams. Length of time in the United States also appeared to play a
role in their academic success. Those who had spent 10 years or more in the
United States had lower GPAs than those who had been in the United States
for 3 to 8 years. All students reported being frustrated by the restrictions
they encountered due to their undocumented status. Similar to Munoz
(2008), 40% chose to be proactive by engaging in community service or
mentoring activities to help undocumented youth.
Finally, Abrego (2006), in her ethnographic study of undocumented
Latino adolescents reports various environmental risk factors. Both docu-
mented and undocumented students in her study reported various incidents
of violence near their homes and schools, and attend poorly funded schools
with 4-year college going rates of less than 10%. Unlike their counterparts
with legal status, undocumented students feared the same fate as their older
siblings who excelled in school but ended up in undesirable jobs with few
options due to their undocumented status. Some students reported a drop in
their academic performance and found it difficult to remain motivated
once they learned about their legal status. They became disillusioned and
lowered their aspirations.
The findings from the few studies focusing on undocumented Latino
youth suggest that while both documented and undocumented immigrant
Latino youth face similar educational and psychological risks, undocumented
youth’s precarious legal status translates into additional risk factors and
sources of stress. However, the psychological and academic effects of legal
marginalization have not been fully studied nor addressed by researchers.
Psychological Resilience
Researchers argue that resilience is the process (Olsson, Bond, Burns,
Vella-Brodrick, & Sawyer, 2003) of overcoming the negative effects of risk
exposure, coping successfully with traumatic experiences, and avoiding the
negative trajectories associated with those risks (Garmezy, Masten, &
Tellegen, 1984; Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Masten & Powell, 2003;
Rutter, 1985; Werner, 1992). A key requirement of resilience is the presence
of both risk and protective factors that either help bring about a positive
6 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
outcome or reduce and avoid a negative outcome. Resilience theory, though
it is concerned with risk exposure among adolescents, is focused more on
strengths rather than deficits and understanding healthy development in
spite of high risk exposure. Personality characteristics and environmental
social resources are thought to moderate the negative effects of stress and
promote positive outcomes despite risks (Bernard, 1995; Kirby & Fraser,
1997; Masten, 1994; Werner & Smith, 1992).
Personal Protective Factors
Bernard (1995) reports the importance of personal characteristics in
resilience such as social competence, problem-solving skills, and autonomy,
sense of purpose and future, and high positive expectations. The more
resources young people have to draw on during times of stress, the better
their chances are of dealing with difficulties more effectively (Luthar &
Zelazo, 2003). Werner and Smith (1992) report that resilient children
exhibit good communication skills, a sense of responsibility, achievement
orientation, caring attitudes, an internal locus of control, a positive self-
concept, and a belief in self-help. Gender has been frequently confirmed as
a correlate of resilience, assuming a protective role. Longitudinal studies
(Werner, 1989) indicate that women are generally more skilled in accessing
and using social supports and resources. Feingold (1994) found that women
report more extraversion, trust, gregariousness, and nurturance which are
hypothesized to be important personal protective factors.
Environmental Protective Factors
Resilience is also an ecological phenomenon (Greene, 2002; Jozefowicz-
Simbeni & Allen-Meares, 2002; Richman & Fraser, 2001). Environments
may contribute to a person’s risk of various problems, but can also provide
protection to enhance the likelihood of positive outcomes. Resources are
positive factors that are external to the individual and help overcome risk,
such as parental support, adult mentoring, or community organizations that
promote positive youth development.
Academic Resilience
In addition to social and psychological outcomes, resilience research has
also examined academic success and persistence despite stressful events
Perez et al. / Resilient Undocumented Students 7
and conditions during childhood and adolescence (Alva, 1991; Wang,
Haertel, & Walberg, 1994). Well-established risk factors include being a
minority student attending an inner-city school, or coming from a low-
income home where English is not the primary language. Although there
are many students who perform poorly and continue the downward trend
(Dauber, Alexander, & Entwisle, 1996), there are a significant number of
others who manage to do well in school (Jimerson, Egeland, & Teo, 1999).
Two types of protective factors have consistently been identified as
evident among academically invulnerable children: personal and environ-
mental resources (Garmezy, 1981, 1983; Garmezy & Rutter, 1983; Werner,
Bierman, & French, 1971; Werner & Smith, 1982).
Personal Protective Resources for Academic Resilience
Students who do well in the classroom show a positive self-evaluation
of their academic status at school (Wylie, 1979) and a sense of control over
their academic success and failure (Dweck & Licht, 1980; Dweck &
Wortman, 1982; Stipek & Weisz, 1981; Willig, Harnisch, Hill, & Maehr,
1983). Gordon (1996) found that faith in their own cognitive skills was one
of the main differences between resilient and nonresilient Latino students
in an urban school environment. The high academic achievers excelled
because they believed in their own capabilities to achieve.
Environmental Protective Resources for Academic Resilience
Academically successful students appear to have a supportive network
of family members, friends, neighbors, and teachers whom they rely on for
counsel and advice in difficult or stressful situations. Mexican American
parents, in particular, are mentioned by successful students as an important
source of support and encouragement (Alva, 1991; Arellano & Padilla,
1996; Gandara, 1982). In Gandara’s study of successful Mexican American
professionals, she found that 93% of the professionals surveyed reported
that the educational support they received from their parents during
childhood and adolescence was the single most important factor affecting
their high academic goals and expectations.
Family is a very important factor in the development of resiliency in
immigrant students (Siantz, 1997). In his study of low-income Mexican
adolescents and their families, Stanton-Salazar (2001) found that immigrant
parents articulated high aspirations for their children even though many did
not have the opportunity to attend school in their own country, and were not
8 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
able to help their children with academic material or navigating the educa-
tional system in the United States. Supportive relationships, particu larly
encouragement from teachers, school personnel, and other adults are a key
protective factor in the development of resilience among immigrant
students (Bernard, 1995). Together, these findings highlight the importance
of examining the antecedents and correlates of academic invulnerability in
undocumented adolescents.
The purpose of this study was to examine the role of protective resources
in mediating the academic achievement of undocumented Latino youth. Our
study uses three main indicators of academic success: high GPA, high
number of academic awards, and high number of academically rigorous
Honors and AP courses. The assumption is that these represent significant
accomplishments for undocumented Latino students who must surmount a
multitude of obstacles to attain them. The primary hypothesis of this study
was that academic resilience is at least partially explained by the extent to
which personal and environmental resources are available to them. The
study’s focus on student personal and environmental resources is based on
the premise that these factors are important antecedents of school achieve-
ment. Thus, we sought to answer the following questions: What is the
relationship between risk, protective factors (personal and environmental),
and academic achievement among undocumented immigrant Latino
students? And how do undocumented students with different configurations
of risk and protective factors differ in their academic performance? It was
hypothesized that undocumented students with high levels of risk factors,
but also high levels of both personal and environmental protective factors,
would have higher academic outcomes than students who have similar
levels of risk factors, but lower levels of both personal and environmental
protective factors.
Method
The above questions were explored cross-sectionally and analyzed with
the aid of a dual methodological-analytical approach, both variable-focused
and person-focused (Masten et al., 1999). The use of the two types of
analyses facilitates the formation of conceptual bridges between the main
correlates of resilience. It also provides a holistic picture of interrelation
patterns among factors promoting resilience, while at the same time helping
to uncover some of the connections between psychosocial resources and
positive adaptation.
Perez et al. / Resilient Undocumented Students 9
In the context of resilience process models, the various studies have tradi-
tionally used one of the two analytical approaches, either variable-focused
or person-focused (Achenbach, 1985; Cairns & Magnusson, 1996; Masten &
Powell, 2003). Variable-focused approaches aim at determining specific
interconnections between stress indices and adaptation; they employ regres-
sion analysis tools in an effort to account for covariance among the varia-
bles (Conrad & Hammen, 1993; Gest, Neemann, Hubbard, Masten, &
Tellegen, 1993; Luthar, 1991). Person-focused approaches, on the other
hand, aim at identifying young people who are resilient, adapted, vulnerable
or maladapted, according to a predetermined set of theoretically and
empirically informed criteria. In this study, we used cluster analyses to
determine the role of the personal and environmental protective factors
available to undocumented youth and their effect on academic outcomes.
Participants
One hundred and 10 undocumented Latino high school, community
college, and university students from across the United States participated
in this study. The average age of participants was 19.97 years (SD = 2.15).
A total of 62% of subjects were female. The male to female ratio in this
study is similar to college enrollment rates for Latinos. Hurtado, Saenz,
Santos, & Cabrera, (2008), for example, reported that of all Latinos enrolled
in college in 2006, 61% were female, and more specifically, Mexican
students had a female ratio of 63%. The high school group in this study was
gender balanced with 50% female. The average number of years living in
the United States was 13.03 (SD = 4.80) for males and 13.90 (SD = 4.15) for
females. Male participants came to the United States when they were 7.25
(SD = 5.25) years old while female participants had an average arrival age
of 6.79 (SD = 3.89) years old. A total of 18% participants were high school
seniors, 34% were community college students, and 48% were students at
a B.A.-granting university.
Procedures
Participants were selected from a convenience sample recruited using
e-mail and flyer advertisements to various Latino student organizations at
colleges and high schools in Southern California. Information flyers were
also passed out in several high school and college classrooms. We also
asked participants to forward our information to other students that met
our criteria of being undocumented. The recruitment flyers and emails
10 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
invited students to participate in a research study that focused on “the
educational experiences of undocumented students.” This is the only detail
that participants received regarding the purpose of the study. e-mail and
printed flyer announcements contained a link to an online survey hosted by
Surveymonkey.com. The online survey did not collect names, emails,
school names, or any other type of identifying information to protect the
confidentiality of participants.
The first part of the online survey consisted of open-ended questions that
asked participants to list their academic achievements, civic engagement
experiences, extracurricular activities, leadership positions, and enrollment in
advanced level academic courses. The second part of the survey consisted of
school background and demographic information. The third and final part of
the online questionnaire consisted of various Likert-type style, self-reported
questions designed to assess distress levels, perceived societal rejection due
to undocumented status, bilingualism, student valuing of school, parental
valuing of school, and friends valuing of school. The survey took approximately
45 minutes to complete. Following is a description of the independent and
dependent variables used in this study.
Measures
For the purpose of this study, we operationalized four key theoretical
concepts: risk, environmental protective factors, personal protective factors,
and academic outcomes. A detailed description of all key variables used in
the analyses follows.
Risk factors. As Table 1 indicates, we used four measures of risk factors:
employment during high school, sense of rejection related to undocumented
status, low parental educational attainment, and large family size.
High school employment. Students were asked, “How many hours per
week did you work in high school?” High school employment was consid-
ered a risk if students worked more than 20 hours per week. Several studies
have reported negative effects on school performance and engagement
when students work past 20 hours a week during the school year (Steinberg
& Cauffman, 1995; Steinberg & Dornbusch, 1991; Steinberg, Fegley, &
Dornbusch, 1993).
Parental education. Students were asked how many years of schooling
their mother and father had completed. We took the average of the mother’s
and father’s years of education to create a parental education index.
Perez et al. / Resilient Undocumented Students 11
Parental education was considered a risk factor if the parental education
index was less than a high school education.
Family size. Students were asked to report their total number of brothers
and sisters. Family size was considered a risk factor if participants reported
having three or more siblings as previous studies have identified three or
more siblings as a risk factor (Grissmer, Kirby, Berends, & Williamson,
1994; Luthar, 1991; Sameroff, Seifer, Baldwin, & Baldwin, 1993; Seifer,
Sameroff, Baldwin, & Baldwin, 1992).
Rejection due to undocumented status. This scale was developed spe-
cifically for this study and was composed of three statements such as
“Because of my undocumented background I feel that I am not wanted in
this country.” Respondents indicated their responses on a 7-point Likert-
type scale ranging from 7 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). Higher
scores indicated higher feelings of alienation. The scale had high Cronbach’s
alpha internal reliability value of .89.
Personal protective factors. Table 1 indicates the four measures of
personal protective factors: having been identified as gifted or talented
Table 1
Risk and Protective Concepts, Measures, and Academic
Outcome/Adaptation Variables
Concept Measure
Risk factor Work more than 20 hours/week during high school
Sense of rejection due to undocumented status
Low parental educational attainment
Large family
Personal protective factors Participation in GATE
Valuing of school
High Bilingualism
Distress
Environmental protective factors Parental valuing of school
Friends valuing of school
Participation in extracurricular activities
Participation in volunteer/community service
Grew up with both parents
Outcomes Academic awards
GPA
AP/Honors courses
12 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
during their early education, valuing of schooling, bilingualism, and coping
with distress.
Gifted. If the participant had been designated as gifted or talented during
her or his elementary or middle school education, it was considered a per-
sonal protective factor.
Distress scale. The distress scale was composed of 12 statements such as
“Lately do you feel sad?” and “Lately do you feel that you don’t have much
energy?” Respondents indicated their responses on a 7-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 7 (always) to 1 (never). Low distress was considered a
protective factor as those reporting lower distress scores demonstrate more
adaptive coping with the high levels of stress that undocumented students
contend with on a daily basis. This measure has been successfully used in
previous studies to measure emotional distress among immigrant youth
(Suárez-Orozco & Doucet, 2006; Suarez-Orozco, Todoro, & Louie, 2002).
The scale had high Cronbach’s alpha internal reliability value of .89.
Bilingualism. The bilingualism scale was composed of eight statements
such as “How well do you understand Spanish?” and “How well do you
read English?” Respondents indicated their responses on a 4-point Likert-
type scale ranging from 4 (very well) to 1 (not at all). Students who
reported understanding, speaking, reading, and writing both English and
Spanish “very well” were considered having the protective factor of being
highly bilingual. The scale had high Cronbach’s alpha internal reliability
value of .82.
Valuing of schooling. The valuing of schooling scale was composed of
five statements such as “How important is it for you to do well in school?”
and “How important is it to earn good grades?” The scale was adapted from
Midgley, Maehr, and Urdan’s (1993) measures of academic engagement.
Respondents indicated their responses on a 7-point Likert-type scale rang-
ing from 7 (very important) to 1 (not important at all). Higher scores on the
valuing of school scale was the second personal protective factor. The scale
had a high Cronbach’s alpha internal reliability value of .76.
Environmental protective factors. Five environmental protective factor
measures were used: parental valuing of school, friends valuing of school-
ing, participation in extracurricular activities, participation in volunteer
activities, and growing up with both parents (see Table 2).
Table 2
Background and Psychosocial Variables
Male (n = 42) Female (n = 68) Total (N = 110)
M (SD) % M (SD) % M (SD) %
Background variables
Years in the United States 13.03
a
(4.80) 13.90
a
(4.15) 13.55 (4.41)
Age when immigrated to the United 7.25
a
(5.25) 6.79
a
(3.89) 6.97 (4.43)
States
Gender 38 62 100
Risk factors
Mother’s years of schooling 8.30
a
(4.40) 8.39
a
(4.41) 8.35 (4.38)
Father’s years of schooling 9.21
a
(4.49) 10.05
a
(4.68) 9.71 (4.60)
Hours worked per week 13.64
a
(12.49) 11.15
a
(12.88) 12.10 (12.73)
Number of siblings 2.37
a
(1.32) 2.83
a
(1.86) 2.66 (1.69)
Rejection due to undocumented status 4.28
a
(1.64) 4.18
a
(1.49) 4.22 (1.54)
Personal protective factors
Participation in GATE 39 34 36
Valuing of schooling 6.07
a
(1.22) 6.51
b
(.57) 6.34 .90
Distress Scale 1.92
a
(0.56) 2.18
b
(0.56) 2.09 (0.57)
Bilingualism 2.29
a
(.61) 2.28
a
(.70) 2.28 .67
Environmental Protective Factors
Parental valuing of schooling 3.60
a
(.61) 3.50
a
(.76) 3.54 .71
Grew up with both parents 68 63 65
Friends valuing of school 2.93
a
(.74) 3.16
a
(.71) 3.07 .72
High school extracurricular activities 1.74
a
(1.21) 2.06
a
(1.17) 1.94 (1.19)
High school volunteer service 1.17
a
(1.08) 1.57
b
(1.04) 1.42 (1.07)
Academic outcomes
Honors and AP courses 4.79
a
(5.01) 4.16
a
(4.11) 4.40 4.46
High school Awards 1.64
a
(1.28) 1.90
a
(1.35) 1.80 1.33
High school GPA 3.43
a
(.66) 3.51
a
(.50) 3.48 (.56)
Note: Means in the gender columns are significantly different from each other if they do not share a subscript.
13
14 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
Extracurricular activities. Students were asked to list all the extracur-
ricular activities they participated in during high school. Extracurricular
participation was defined as participation in the following activities: Stud-
ent council, sports, band/music/choir, drama/theater, Newspaper/magazine/
year book, cultural dance, clubs, YMCA/YWCA, Boys/Girls Club. After
the extracurricular activities were coded, they were counted and summed to
create an extracurricular participation score. Since extracurricular partici-
pation provides multiple opportunities for developing relationships with
other academically engaged peers and school agents, higher counts of
extracurricular activities was considered an environmental protec tive factor.
Volunteer activities. Students were asked in an open-ended format to list
all volunteer activities they participated in during high school. Volunteerism
was defined as participation in any one of the following activities: provid-
ing a social service, working for a cause and political activism, tutoring,
and functionary work. Performing social service entailed interaction with
people in need such as visiting, feeding, or caring for the homeless, poor,
sick, elderly, or handicapped. Working for a cause and political activism
was defined as having engaged in activities focused on a particular social
issue or cause such as the environment, a political party, human rights, or
other causes that did not entail direct interaction with the needy. Tutoring
was defined as coaching, child care, and academic tutoring. Functionary
work was defined as having participated in volunteer activities that entailed
cleaning and maintenance work or organizing and administrative work
such as beach cleanup. After the volunteer activities were coded, they were
counted and summed to create a volunteer score. Higher scores were
considered an environmental protective factor.
Family composition. Students were asked to indicate which parents or
guardians they lived with growing up. Students were asked to select from
the following 10 choices: “Both my mother and my father in the same
house,” “Only my mother,” “My mother and stepfather,” “Only my father,”
“My father and stepmother,” “Some of the time in my mother’s home and
some in my father’s,” “Other relative (aunt, uncle, grandparents, etc.),”
“Guardian or foster parent who is not a relative,” “No parents or guardians
(I lived alone or with friends),” and “Other.” Student responses were then
coded into one of two categories: (1) lived with both parents growing up,
or (2) other. Growing up with both parents was considered an environmental
protective factor.
Perez et al. / Resilient Undocumented Students 15
Parent valuing of schooling. The parental valuing of school scale was
composed of 2 statements: “For my parents, me getting good grades in
school is?” and “For my parents, me going to college after high school is?”
Respondents indicated their responses on a 4-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 4 (very important) to 1 (not important). High scores on the
parental valuing of school was considered an environmental protective
factor. This scale was developed for the Harvard longitudinal immigrant
student adaptation study and has been validated in previous studies
(Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 2001; Suarez-Orozco, Suarez-Orozco, &
Todorova, 2008).The scale had high Cronbach’s alpha internal reliability
value of .85.
Friends valuing of schooling. The friends valuing of school scale was
composed of three statements: “For my friends, getting good grades in
school is?” and “For my friends, going to college after high school is?”
Respondents indicated their responses on a 4-point Likert-type scale rang-
ing from 4 (very important) to 1 (not important). High scores on the friends
valuing of school was considered an environmental protective factor. This
scale was developed for the Harvard longitudinal immigrant student adap-
tation study and has been validated in previous studies (Suarez-Orozco &
Suarez-Orozco, 2001; Suarez-Orozco et al., 2008). The scale had high
Cronbach’s alpha internal reliability value of .87.
Academic outcomes. The risk and protective factors described above
were the independent variables used to understand the academic perfor-
mance patterns of undocumented Latino students. The four academic out-
comes used were high school GPA, number of school awards received
during high school, and number of academically rigorous Honors and AP
courses taken (see Table 1).
GPA. The GPA variable was calculated by asking students to report their
overall high school GPA on a standard 4.0 scale. Previous research that
included Latino high school students (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman,
Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987) has found a strong correlation, .76, between
self-reported grades and official grades.
School awards. Students were asked in an open-ended format to list all
awards they received in high school. An academic award was defined by
student of the month award, honor roll, attendance award, spelling bee/
writing/poetry contest award, subject award (i.e., science award), school
16 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
sports award, band/music/choir award, community service award, citizenship
award for good behavior, or student of the year award. After the awards were
coded, they were counted and summed to create a total awards score.
Honors and AP courses. Students were asked to list all Honors and
AP courses they took during high school. Examples of Honors courses
included Honors English or Honors biology, while examples of AP courses
included AP calculus or AP chemistry. After all courses were coded, they
were counted and summed to create a total number of academically rigor-
ous courses score.
Results
The results are presented in two distinct sections. The first section
describes associations among all variables used in the regression analyses.
The second section identifies subgroups of students based on risk and
protective factor configurations from the cluster analyses results.
Descriptive Statistics
Risk factors. Table 1 indicates that undocumented immigrant Latino stu-
dents have parents with low levels of education. Participant mothers had an
8th grade education (M = 8.35, SD = 4.41) and fathers had a 10th grade
education (M = 9.71, SD = 4.60). A total of 83% of mothers and 73% of
fathers had less than 12 years of education with only 4% of mothers and
10% of fathers having 16 years of education or the equivalent of a university
degree. Male and female students did not differ in mother’s level of educa-
tion, t(97) = .10, p > .05, or father’s level of education, t(92) = .87, p > .05
On average, participants had 2.66 (SD = 1.69) siblings with almost half
(47%) having three or more siblings. There were no gender differences in
sibling size, t(100) = 1.33, p > .05. Another academic risk factor for students
was the high number of hours worked at a job per week during high school.
On average, students worked 12 hours per week (M = 12.10, SD = 12.73).
Forty percent of participants reported working 20 hours or more per week,
including 11% who reported working 30 hours or more per week. The fourth
measure of academic risk was students feeling of societal rejection due to
their undocumented status. On a 7-point Likert-type scale, students reported
a moderately high mean rejection score of 4.22 (SD = 1.54). There were
no gender differences in hours worked per week, t(106) = 1.05, p < .05 or
feelings of rejection, t(100) = .32, p > .05.
Perez et al. / Resilient Undocumented Students 17
Personal protective factors. Thirty-six percent of undocumented students
had been identified as gifted during their early schooling. Male students
had a higher percentage of gifted designation (39%) than female students
(34%). A chi-square analysis revealed that the difference was not statisti-
cally significant, χ
2
(1) = .23, p > .05. Undocumented students also reported
high valuing of schooling (M = 6.34, SD = .90, scale range = 1-7). T-test
comparisons revealed that female students had significantly higher valuing
of school than males, t(101) = 2.47, p < .05. Students also reported high
levels of bilingualism with no significant differences between males and
females, t(100) = .06, p > .05. Finally, female students reported significantly
higher distress levels (M = 2.18, SD = .56) than males (M = 1.92, SD = .56),
t(101) = 2.26, p < .05. It should be noted, however, that the scale range was
1 to 4, thus the distress scores were moderately low overall.
Environmental protective factors. Undocumented students report high
levels of parental valuing of schooling (M = 3.54, SD = .71, scale
range=1-4), and friends valuing of schooling, (M = 3.07, SD = .72, scale
range=1-4). On average, undocumented students participated in 1.94
(SD = 1.19) extracurricular activities and 1.42 (SD = 1.07) volunteer service
activities. Female students reported higher volunteering rates than males,
t(108) = 1.96, p < .05. Overall, 65% of participants grew up in a two-parent
household.
Achievement. The average high school GPA was 3.48 (SD = .56, scale
range = 0-4). The mean number of academically rigorous Honors and AP
courses students took in high school was 4.40 (SD = 4.46). On average,
students received 1.80 (SD = 1.33) academic awards. There were no gender
differences in GPA, t(97) = .70, p > .05, Honors/AP coursework, t(108) =
.71, p > .05, or academic awards, t(108) = .98, p > .05.
Incremental Regression Analyses
The first set of analyses examined whether risk and protective factors
were associated with academic outcomes. Four regression analyses, one for
each academic outcome variable, were conducted to test the proportion of
variance incrementally explained by risk factors, personal protective
factors, and environmental protective factors. Academic outcomes were
regressed on the predictor variables which were blocked and entered in the
regression equation in the following order: (a) risk factors, (b) personal
protective factors, and (c) environmental protective factors. After each
18 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
block was entered into the regression equation, the proportion of variance
incrementally explained was calculated. Table 3 presents the correlations
between the risk and protective factor variables and the academic outcome
variables.
G PA . As summarized in Table 3, in step 1 risk factors accounted for
5% of the variance in high school GPA. At step 2, the personal protective
factors added 7% to the variance accounted for in GPA. Lastly, the propor-
tion of variance on GPA that was accounted for by environmental protec-
tive factors was 12%, over and above the risk and personal protective
factors. In total, 24% of the variance on GPA was accounted for by a com-
bination of risk factors, personal protective factors, and environmental
protective factors. A closer examination of the individual predictor vari-
ables indicated the positive association between several personal and
environmental protective factors and GPA. More specifically, valuing of
schooling was positively associated with GPA. The environmental protec-
tive factors of extracurricular participation and volunteerism were also
positively associated with GPA.
School awards. Following the same procedure for high school awards,
the proportion of variance attributed to the risk factors, personal protective
factors, and environmental protective factors were 0%, 7%, and 17% respec-
tively. Both the personal and environmental protective factors each signifi-
cantly increased the variance proportion for academic awards. The total
explained variance of high school awards was 22%. Similar to GPA, risk
factors and personal and environmental protective factors were significantly
correlated with awards received. Students with lower hours worked at a job,
higher valuing of school, and greater participation in extracurricular and
volunteer activities reported higher number of school awards.
Honors/AP courses. The next outcome variable examined was number
of Honors/AP courses taken. Risk factors, personal protective factors, and
environmental protective factors accounted for 5%, 13%, and 15% of the
variance respectively. In all, these three sets of variables accounted for 33%
of the variance in number of Honors/AP courses taken. Key risk and per-
sonal and environmental protective factors associated with higher Honors/
AP course-taking included having a lower sense of societal rejection, having
been designated as gifted, higher valuing of school, and higher levels of
extracurricular and volunteer activities.
Perez et al. / Resilient Undocumented Students 19
To summarize the results of the incremental regression analyses, among
the three academic outcome variables, risk factors and personal and
environmental protective factors were consistently significant in predicting
academic success. Valuing of school, extracurricular participation, and
volunteer involvement were all important personal protective factors.
Cluster Analyses
A different approach involving multiple comparisons was subsequently
used to better understand the relationship between risk, protective factors,
and academic outcomes of undocumented students based on similar psycho-
social risk and protective factor profiles. Cluster analyses were carried out
with all the variables associated with risk and resilience: risk factors
(i.e., low levels of parental education, large family size, high employment
work hours during high school, and a high sense of societal rejection due
to undocumented status), personal protective factors (i.e., having been
identified as gifted, valuing of schooling, bilingualism, low distress/high
coping), and environmental protective factors (i.e., growing up with both
parents, parental valuing of school, peer valuing of school, participation in
high school extracurricular and volunteer activities). The analyses were
conducted using standardized scores and the k-means method (Aldenderfer
& Blashfield, 1984; Hartigan, 1975). Since this method is sensitive to
decisions of preferred number of clusters and the values for the initial cluster
centers, we first conducted several exploratory analyses with 20% of the
data selected at random. Based on the fit, with the risk and resilience
theoretical framework guiding the study and on the interpretability of the
resulting clusters, we decided to use three clusters. We then replicated this
three cluster solution using all the data. Based on their risk and protective
factors profiles, we labeled the resulting clusters as high risk, protected, and
resilient. All participants fit one of the three profiles. Figure 1 provides a
graphic representation based on standardized z-scores of the three clusters
that emerged. The high risk cluster (n = 37, 36%) is characterized by high
levels of psychosocial risk accompanied by low levels of personal and
environmental protective factors. The protected cluster (n = 44, 42%) is
characterized by low levels of psychosocial risk, and high levels of personal
and environmental protective factors. The third cluster, (n = 23, 22%) is
characterized by high levels of psychosocial risk accompanied by high
levels of personal and environmental protective factors. Post hoc Chi-
square analyses of the cluster groups reveal no significant differences for
distribution of cluster membership by gender χ
2
(2) = 1.81, p > .05.
20 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
Table 4 shows the mean scores for the three cluster groups on risks,
protective factor variables, and academic outcomes. The one-way ANOVA
results confirm the cluster category groupings. High risk (M = 17.63, SD =
13.19) and resilient (M = 15.32, SD = 14.20) students report working
significantly longer hours per week than protected (M = 6.27, SD = 9.06)
students, F(2, 101) = 9.98, p < .05. Protected students reported significantly
lower levels of rejection due to undocumented status (M = 3.43, SD = 1.46)
than resilient (M = 5.04, SD = 1.06) and high risk (M = 4.62, SD = 1.49)
students F(2, 99) = 12.83, p < .05. Protected students also came from
families with significantly higher parental education levels (M = 10.99,
SD = 4.37) than resilient (M = 7.42, SD = 3.30) or high risk (M = 7.57,
SD = 3.37) students, F(2, 97) = 10.17, p < .05. The three clusters did not
differ in family size, F(2, 99) = 2.30, p > .05, but there was a statistically
nonsignificant trend for resilient and high risk students having larger family
sizes than protected students. Overall, the ANOVA results indicate a higher
number of risk factors among resilient and high risk students compared to
protected students.
Personal protective factors by cluster group. The ANOVA results also
confirm different patterns of personal protective factors among the three
Figure 1
Clusters Profiles
Table 3
Standardized Regression Coefficients for the Prediction of Academic Achievement
HS GPA HS Awards Honors/AP courses
Scale 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Step Items α β β β r β β β r β β β r
Predictor
Risk Factors
Work –.28* –.20* –.12 –.28* –.11 –.01 –.00 –.11 –.26* –.16 –.08 –.26*
Rejection 3 .89 –.01 –.07 –.11 –.04 –.07 –.19 –.15 –.07 –.06 –.18 –.22* –.10
Parent education .05 .07 .05 .05 –.05 –.02 –.06 –.04 .03 .05 .02 .07
Family size .03 .05 .03 .01 –.00 –.01 –.04 .01 –.08 –.08 –.11 –.10
Personal protective factors
Gifted .10 .06 .12 .05 –.04 .06 .26* .23* .28
Valuing of school 5 .76 .29* .27* .33* .22* .22* .22* .20* .19* .25
Bilingualism 8 .82 –.05 –.01 –.04 –.11 –.09 –.12 –.04 –.02 –.05
Distress 12 .89 .08 06 .09 .23* .09 .18 .25* .24* .17
Environmental protective factors
Parental valuing of school 2 .85 .17 .28* .01 .10 .15 .24*
Friends valuing of school 3 87 –.08 .03 .04 .10 –.13 .02
Extracurricular participation .21* .36* .31* .38* .23* .40*
Volunteerism .22* .27* .25* .38* .22* .32*
Family environment .06 .09 –.09 –.09 –.10 –.05
Step 3 F F(13, 96) = 3.58* F(13, 96) = 3.33* F(13, 96) = 5.06*
Total adjusted R
2
.05 .12 .24 –.02 .05 .22 .05 .18 .33
Adjusted R
2
∆
.07* .12* .07* .17* .13* .15*
Note: Gender is coded on a 2-point scale (1 = male, 2 = female); Family environment is coded on a 2-point scale (1 = lived with both parents,
0 = did not live with both parents); r = bivariate correlation between predictor and outcome.
*p < .05. ** p < .01.
21
22 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
clusters. Resilient (M = .55, SD = .51) and protected (M = .43, SD = .50)
students had higher rates of being identified as gifted early in their school-
ing compared to high risk students (M = .15, SD = .36), F(2, 96) = 5.66,
p < .05. Although the Resilient and Protected students higher valuing of
school F(2, 100) = 2.63, p > .05 and bilingualism F(2, 99) = 1.90, p > .05
scores compared to high risk students, these differences were not statistically
Table 4
Mean Standardized Scores on Variables Used to Identify
Risk and Resilience Clusters
Resilient Protected High Risk
(n = 25) (n = 44) (n = 35)
M SD M SD M SD df F
Risk factors
Work 15.32
a
14.20 6.27
b
9.06 17.63
a
13.19 2,101 9.98*
Rejection 5.04
a
1.06 3.43
b
1.46 4.62
a
1.49 2, 99 12.83*
Parent education 7.42
a
3.30 10.99
b
4.37 7.57
a
3.37 2, 97 10.17*
Family size 2.88
a
1.81 2.24
a
1.36 3.00
a
1.88 2, 99 2.30
Personal protective
factors
Gifted 0.52
a
0.51 0.43
ab
0.50 0.16
b
0.37 2, 96 4.99*
Valuing of school 6.42
a
1.10 6.52
a
0.84 6.07
a
0.75 2, 100 2.63
Bilingualism 2.48
a
0.59 2.29
a
0.64 2.14
a
0.73 2, 99 1.90
Distress 2.21
a
0.60 2.00
a
0.49 2.11
a
0.64 2, 100 1.10
Environmental
protective factors
Parental valuing 3.72
a
0.54 3.76
a
0.55 3.14
b
0.82 2, 100 9.80*
of school
Friends valuing 3.24
a
0.60 3.15
a
0.66 2.85
a
0.84 2, 100 2.60
of school
Extracurricular 2.64
a
0.81 2.20
a
1.21 1.29
b
0.96 2, 101 13.74*
participation
Volunteerism 1.92
a
0.70 1.57
a
1.11 0.97
b
1.07 2, 101 6.90*
Grew up in dual- 0.76
a
0.44 0.67
a
0.47 0.54
a
0.51 2, 100 1.61
parent household
Outcomes
GPA 3.61
a
0.47 3.66
a
0.45 3.25
b
0.53 2, 91 6.93*
Awards 2.40
a
1.41 2.00
a
1.40 1.23
b
0.81 2, 101 7.22*
Honors/AP courses 5.56
a
4.73 5.66
a
4.57 2.11
b
3.28 2, 101 8.03*
Note: Column means are significantly different from each other if they do not share a
subscript.
*p < .05.
Perez et al. / Resilient Undocumented Students 23
significant. Resilient students had higher distress levels than protected
and high risk students, but the difference was not statistically significant,
F(2, 100) = 1.10, p > .05.
Environmental protective factors by cluster group. Compared to high risk
students, resilient and protected students had significantly higher parental
valuing of school, F(2, 100) = 9.80, p < .05, extracurricular participation,
F(2, 101) = 13.74, p < .05, and volunteerism, F(2, 101) = 6.90, p < .05. The
three groups did not differ in friends valuing of school, F(2, 100) = 2.60,
p > .05, or in the percentage of cluster members that grew up with both
parents, F(2, 100) = 1.61, p > .05 although the mean scores for these two
variables were higher for the resilient and protected students.
Academic outcomes. As hypothesized, resilient undocumented students
fare better academically than students facing high levels of psychosocial
risks but lacking personal and environmental protective resources. Resili-
ent and protected students had significantly higher GPAs, F(2, 91) = 6.93,
p < .05, number of academic awards, F(2, 101) = 7.22, p < .05, and number
of academically rigorous Honors and AP courses, F(2, 101) = 8.03, p < .05
than high risk students. Academic invulnerability was clearly higher for
Figure 2
Standardized Z-scores of Academic Outcomes by Clusters
24 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
undocumented students that have lower levels of psychosocial risk accom-
panied by high levels of personal and environmental resources. More
important, undocumented students who exhibit high levels of psychosocial
risk, but who enjoy high levels of personal and environmental resources,
are able to maintain high levels of academic performance. Figure 2 demon-
strates the two distinct patterns of academic success among the three
cluster groups.
Discussion
The results of this study support the premise that a constellation of
protective resources can serve to buffer or protect students from the
detrimental effects of psychosocial conditions that place them at-risk of
academic failure. Overall, three main conclusions can be drawn from the
results: (a) academic success (resilience) was related to both personal and
environmental resources, (b) when various resources were present, academic
performance was generally positive, even in the presence of multiple
sources of psychosocial risk, and (c) compared to the protected group, the
high risk and resilient groups suffered significantly higher levels of
adversity. Resilient youth, however, had greater levels of environmental
and personal resources than high risk students who in turn exhibited lower
levels of academic success. These findings add to the growing evidence
suggesting that personal and environmental resources facilitate academic
success among youth growing up in environments where they are exposed
to elevated psychosocial risks.
The psychosocial stressors examined in this study, such as undocumented
status, socioeconomic hardship, and low parental education represent
significant challenges for Latino immigrant adolescents (Eccles, Lord, &
Buchanan, 1996; Zautra, Guarnaccia, Reich, & Dohrenwend, 1988). Thirty-
six percent of participants we surveyed were found to be highly vulnerable,
that is, reporting various risk factors, but lacking in personal and environ-
mental resources. The results from this study suggest that when faced with
the challenges of living in poverty, working long hours at a job during
school, low levels of parental education, feeling a high sense of rejection
due to their legal status, resilient undocumented Latino youth draw on
available personal and environmental resources. Results also suggest that
not all undocumented Latino youth face high levels of risk factors. The
cluster analysis suggests that some undocumented students have lower
levels of risk exposure accompanied by a host of protective factors. In this
Perez et al. / Resilient Undocumented Students 25
study, 42% of participants reported low levels of risk accompanied by high
levels of protective factors. The remaining 58% reported high levels of risk
exposure. It should be noted that only 22% of participants met criteria for
resilience, that is, high levels of personal and environmental resources to
cope with high levels of risk.
The results of the incremental regression analyses indicate that protective
factors cannot be ignored as important mediators of achievement, beyond
the potentially detrimental effects that psychosocial risk factors have on
academic performance. Using cluster analyses to identify groups of students
with similar levels of risk and both personal and protective factors, the
results of this study revealed three distinct profiles: high risk students
with low levels of protective factors (high risk), low risk students with high
levels of protective factors (protected), and high risk students with high
levels of protective factors (resilient). Compared to protected students,
resilient and high risk students worked longer hours at a job during high
school, reported higher levels of feelings of societal rejection due to their
undocumented status, and had parents with lower levels of schooling. The
comparisons of academic outcomes indicate that resilient and protected
students had significantly higher academic achievement levels than high
risk students. Whereas all three groups had similar levels of personal
protective factors, protected and resilient students had much higher levels
of environmental protective factors. Both resilient and protected students
reported higher levels of parental valuing of school, extracurricular partici-
pation, and volunteering.
Findings from both the regression and cluster analyses consistently
indicated that giftedness, valuing of school, extracurricular participation,
and volunteerism were significant predictors of academic achievement
among undocumented youth. Giftedness was assigned a protective role,
especially in high adversity situations. This result is consistent with other
research findings emphasizing the significance of cognitive resources
such as IQ, and general intellectual functioning on the development and
maintenance of good adaptation in adversity (Luthar, 1991; Masten et al.,
1999; Ripple & Luthar, 2000). In a study with academically resilient Latino
students at a highly selective university, Arellano and Padilla (1996) found
that a significant percentage of them had been identified as gifted early
in their schooling. In our study, bilingualism and distress did not seem to
play an important role as a resource in the interplay between adversity and
academic success. This finding may be the result of the measurement
methods used in this study. A more comprehensive way to measure bilingu-
alism and distress might yield more valid results.
26 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
Resilient and protected youth possessed a wider repertoire of environ-
mental resources than their high risk peers. They seemed to enjoy higher
levels of parental valuing of school as well as greater integration in school
communities through their extracurricular and volunteer activities. This
combination of resources seemed to allow them to maintain a higher level
of academic functioning even though they shared the same high levels of
psychosocial risks as the high risk students. Another important finding is
the similarity in academic outcomes between the protected and resilient
students. Given their lower levels of psychosocial risks and high levels of
protective resources, resilience theory predicts higher academic outcomes
than resilient youth. This finding from our study possibly reflects the fact
that not being particularly tried by adversity, the protected individuals’
subjective sense of well-being remained unchallenged and largely left
intact by external environmental threats. On the whole, the resilient group
seemed to adapt well under adversity as indicated by their high academic
achievement levels. The high risk group in this study appeared to lack the
necessary resources to maintain the same high levels of academic achieve-
ment as protected and resilient students.
The primacy of extracurricular participation and volunteerism as environ-
mental resources available to resilient and protected students underscores
the importance of environmental opportunities to develop relationships with
supportive adults and peers engaged in prosocial activities. The results
suggest that school opportunities to develop social support plays a critical
role in encouraging students to succeed in high school. Overall, extra-
curricular participation and volunteerism were the strongest predictors of
academic achievement among undocumented Latino students with the
resilient students reporting the highest levels of these two environmental
protective resources.
If environmental factors can contribute to academic resilience within
individuals, then those factors can be modified to increase the protection or
assets in undocumented students’ lives. Increasingly, schools are being
explored for their potential to strengthen the resilience of children and
youth (Benson, 2002; Doll & Lyon, 1998; Durlak, 1995; Henderson &
Milstein, 2003; Minnard, 2002). The number of children served by schools,
and the amount of time in which students are influenced by their school
environments from kindergarten through 12th grade, are primary reasons
for such efforts. The role of the school in child development (Minnard,
2002), the capacity of school personnel to develop competence in students
(Doll & Lyon, 1998), and the ability of the school to serve as an organiza-
tional base for mobilizing linkages with parents and community resources
Perez et al. / Resilient Undocumented Students 27
are other reasons for using schools to enhance resilience. Building develop-
mental assets supports the academic mission of schools because higher
levels of assets are associated with greater academic achievement and
lower rates of school dropouts (Benson, 2002).
Design and Sampling Considerations
This research is limited in several respects. Most important, it does not
provide detailed information about frequency and duration of risk factors
such as employment, and protective factors such as extracurricular and
volunteer levels. We did not have information on the intensity, type of
activity, quality of this involvement, and factors that moderate the rela-
tion between activity participation and development (Holland & Andre,
1987; Mahoney, Larson, & Eccles, 2005). In addition, our analyses did not
consider what was happening inside these activity contexts. These issues
add variability and error to the analyses that may suppress effect sizes.
Another methodological consideration is the correlational nature of the
study. Students chose whether to participate in volunteer and extracurri-
cular activities, and as such, selection effects not considered in this study
may influence the findings. For example, support from parents appears to
influence the decision to participate and stay involved in afterschool
activities (Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, Whalen, 1993; Fletcher, Elder, &
Mekos, 2000). The peer group also plays an important role (e.g., Coleman,
1961; Eder, Evans, & Parker, 1995; Hultzman, 1995). In addition, the
correlational nature of the study prevents us from drawing causal conclusions
regarding developmental antecedents and academic outcomes.
Our study is also subject to selection biases. It is not possible to rule out
that our findings are due to some self-selection characteristics that were not
controlled for in our analyses. For example, we do not have any information
on high school graduates who did not continue on to college, thus our
findings may not generalize to all Latino undocumented adolescents.
Furthermore, even though high risk students in our study reported lower
academic outcomes than the resilient or protected students, they still report
high GPAs. This may be due to the self-reported nature of the GPA, or it
may also be due to high achievement levels in the sample overall given that
most students had been admitted to college or were college track seniors.
Future studies should include a sample with a broader academic range.
Nevertheless, the results help to better understand how undocumented youth
attain high levels of achievement in the context of poverty, low parental
education, and legal exclusion.
28 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
Another methodological question concerns the ordering of the rela-
tions among personal and environmental factors and academic outcomes.
Development is a fluid, bidirectional, and complex process. In our analyses,
we assume that those personal and protective factors predict academic
functioning. However, an alternative explanation is that academic success
predicts personal and protective factor configurations. It is not possible to
entirely rule out this explanation with our analytic design. Similarly, these
aspects of functioning influence each other in a reciprocal fashion over time
(Elder & Shanahan, 2006). Future research should use structural equation
modeling to explore these bidirectional links.
Future studies should also compare the academic functioning of undocu-
mented Latino students with those that have legal status and/or with 2nd
and 3rd generation. These generational and legal status comparisons can
help us to better understand the magnitude, frequency, and occurrence of
risk and protective factors that impact academic, psychological, and social
functioning in the Latino adolescent population. The present study is not a
comparison of stressors between different generations of immigrant youth
nor is it a comparison of stressor levels between legal and undocumented
Latino youth. Rather, it sought to examine the relationship between acade-
mic outcomes and the constellation of personal and environmental resources
associated with those outcomes. Despite the absence of generational or
legal status comparisons, this study contributes to the research literature an
initial understanding of the specific factors that are associated with
academic success with high risk undocumented Latino students. Despite its
limitations, results of this study add to the small but growing knowledge
about undocumented Latino youth. A deeper understanding of developmental
pathways to academic resilience has the potential to illuminate long-held
conceptual models about the development of academic competence among
immigrant youth.
Conclusions and Implications
The results of this study offer new insights into how resilient undocu-
mented Latino youth draw on specific personal, family, and school resources
to circumvent the effects of various stressors as well as social and institu-
tional barriers to become academically successful. Although the research
on undocumented resilient immigrant youth is only now beginning to
emerge, it is important to continue studying this growing population. We
need more quantitative and qualitative studies that help us better understand
Perez et al. / Resilient Undocumented Students 29
the psychosocial impact of immigration and immigration policies of
receiving countries on immigrant children and adolescents.
References
Abrego, L. (2006). “I can’t go to college because I don’t have papers”: Incorporation patterns
of Latino undocumented youth. Latino Studies, 4, 212-231.
Achenbach, T. M. (1985). Assessment and taxonomy of child and adolescent psychopathology.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. (Sage Univesity Paper
series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 07-044). Newbury Park,
NJ: Sage.
Alva, S. A. (1991). Academic invulnerability among Mexican American students: The
importance of protective resources and appraisals. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 13, 18-34.
Arellano A. R., & Padilla, A. M. (1996). Academic invulnerability among a select group of
Latino students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18, 485-507.
Benson, P. L. (2002). Adolescent development in social and community context: A program
of research. New Directions for Youth Development, 95, 123-147.
Bernard, B. (1995). Fostering resiliency in kids: Protective factors in the family school and
community. San Francisco: West Ed Regional Educational Laboratory.
Buriel, R., Perez, W., De Ment, T., Chavez, D., & Moran, V. (1998). The relationship of
language brokering to academic performance, biculturalism, and self-efficacy among
Latino adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 20, 283-297.
Cairns, R. B., & Magnusson, D. (1996). Developmental science: Toward a unified framework.
In R. B. Cairns, G. H. Elder & E. J. Costello (Eds.), Developmental science (pp. 151-174).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cervantes, R. C., & Castro, F. G. (1985). Stress, coping, and Mexican American mental health:
A systematic review. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 1, 1-73.
Coleman, J. S. (1961). The adolescent society. New York: Free Press.
Conrad, M., & Hammen, C. (1993). Protective and resource factors in high- and low-risk
children: A comparison of children with unipolar, bipolar, medically ill, and normal moth-
ers, Development and Psychopathology, 5, 593-607.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of
success & failure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dauber, S. L., Alexander, K. L., & Entwisle, D. R. (1996). Tracking and transitions through the
middle grades: Channeling educational trajectories. Sociology of Education, 69, 290-307.
De Leon, S. (2005). Assimilation and ambiguous experience of the resilient male Mexican
immigrants that successfully navigate American higher education. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Doll, B., & Lyon, M, A, (1998). Risk and resilience: Implications for the delivery of educa-
tional and mental health services in schools. School Psychology Review, 27, 348-363.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The
relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58,
1244-1257.
30 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
Dozier, S. B. (1993). Emotional concerns of undocumented and out-of-status foreign students.
Community Review, 13, 33-29.
Durlak, J. A. (1995). School-based prevention programs for children and adolescents.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dweck, C. S., & Licht, B. G. (1980). Learned helplessness and intellectual development. In
J. Garber & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Human helplessness: Theory and application
(pp. 197-221). New York: Academic Press.
Dweck, C. S., Wortman, C. B. (1982). Learned helplessness, anxiety, and achievement
motivation: Neglected parallels in cognitive, affective, and coping responses. In H. W.
Krohne & L. Laux (Eds.), Achievement, stress, and anxiety (pp. 93-125). Washington,
DC: Hemisphere.
Eccles, J. S., Lord, S., & Buchanan, C. M. (1996). School transitions in early adolescence:
What are we doing to our young people? In J. A. Graber, J. Brooks-Gunn, & A. C. Petersen
(Eds.), Transitions through adolescence: Interpersonal domains and context (pp. 251-284).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eder, D., Evans, C., & Parker, S. (1995). School talk: Gender and adolescent culture. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Elder, G. H., & Shanahan, M. J. (2006). The life course and human development. In
W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1,
pp. 665-715). New York: John Wiley.
Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 116, 429-456.
Fletcher, A. C., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Mekos, D. (2000). Parental influences on adolescent
involvement in community activities. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 29-48.
Gandara, P. (1982). Passing through the eye of the needle: High achieving Chicanos. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 4, 167-180.
Garmezy, N. (1981). Children under stress: Perspectives on antecedents and correlates of
vulnerability and resistance to psychopathology. In A. I. Rabin, J. Arongy, A. M. Baverlay,
& R. A. Zucker (Eds.), Future explorations in personality. New York: John Wiley.
Garmezy, N. (1983). Stressors in childhood. In N. Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, coping
and development in childhood. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Garmezy, N., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence in
children: A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55,
97-111.
Garmezy, N., & Rutter, M. (Eds.). (1983). Stress, coping, and development in children. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Garza, E., Reyes, P., & Trueba, E. (2004). Resiliency and success: Migrant children in the
United States. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Gest, S. D., Neemann, J., Hubbard, J. J., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A.(1993). Parenting qual-
ity, adversity, and conduct problems in adolescence: Testing process-oriented models of
resilience, Development and Psychopathology, 5, 663-682.
Gonzalez, M. S., Plata, O., Garcia, E., Torres, M., & Urrieta, L. (2003). Testimonios de immi-
grantes: Students educating future teachers. Journal of Latinos and Education, 2, 233-243.
Gordon, K. (1996). Resilient Hispanic youths’ self-concept and motivational patterns.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18, 63-73.
Greene, R. R. (2002). Human behavior theory: A resilience orientation. In R. R. Greene (Ed.),
Resiliency: An integrated approach lo practice, policy, and research (pp. 1-27). Washington,
DC: NASW.
Perez et al. / Resilient Undocumented Students 31
Grissmer, D. W., Kirby, S. N., Berends, M., & Williamson, S. (1994). Student achievement and
the changing American family. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Hartigan, J. (1975). Clustering algorithms. New York: John Wiley.
Henderson, N., & Milstein, M. (2003). Resiliency in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Holland, A., & Andre, T. (1987). Participation in extracurricular activities in secondary school:
What is known, what needs to be known? Review of Educational Research, 57, 437-466.
Hultzman, W. Z. (1995). The influence of others as a barrier to recreation participation among
early adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 25, 150-164.
Hurtado, S. H., Saenz, V. B., Santos, J. L., & Cabrera, N. L. (2008). Advancing in higher
education: A portrait of Latina/o college freshmen at four year institutions, 1975-2006. Los
Angeles: UCLA.
Igoa, C. (1995). The inner world of the immigrant child. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jimerson, S., Egeland, B., & Teo, A. (1999). A longitudinal study of achievement trajectories:
Factors associated with change. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 116-126.
Jozefowicz-Simbeni, D. M. H., & Allen-Meares, P. (2002). Poverty and schools: Intervention
and resource building through school-linked services. Children & Schools, 24, 123-136.
Kirby, L. D., & Fraser, M. W. (1997). Risk and resilience in childhood. In M. W. Fraser (Ed.),
Risk and resilience in childhood: An ecological perspective (pp. 10-33). Washington, DC:
NASW.
Kurtines, W., & Miranda, M. (1980). Differences in self and family role perceptions among
acculturating Cuban American college students. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations. 4, 167-184.
Luthar, S. S. (1991).Vulnerability and resilience: A study of high-risk adolescents. Child
Development, 62, 600-616.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: a critical evalu-
ation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543-562.
Luthar, S. S., & Zelazo, L. B. (2003). Research on resilience: An integrative view. In
S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood
adversities (pp. 510-549). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mahoney, J. L., Larson, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (Eds.). (2005). Organized activities as contexts
of development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Masten, A. S. (1994). Resilience in individual development: Successful adaptation despite risk
and adversity. In M. C. Wang & E.W. Gordon (Eds.), Educational resilience in inner-city
America: Challenges and prospects (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Masten, A. S., Hubbard, J. J., Gest, S. D., Tellegen, A., Garmezy, N., & Ramirez, M. (1999).
Competence in the context of adversity: Pathways to resilience and maladaptation from
childhood to late adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 143-169.
Masten, A. S., & Powell, J. L. (2003). A resilience framework for research, policy, and practice.
In S. S. Luthar (Ed.). Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood
adversities (pp. 1-28). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Midgley, C, Maehr, M. L, & Urdan, T. (1993). Patterns of adaptive learning survey (PALS)
manual. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Minnard, C. V. (2002). A strong building: Foundation of protective factors in schools. Children
& Schools, 24, 233-246.
Munoz, S. M. (2008). Understanding issues of college persistence for undocumented Mexican
immigrant women from the new Latino Diaspora: A case study. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Iowa State University.
32 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
Oliverez, P. M. (2006). Ready but restricted: An examination of the challenges of college
access and financial aid for college-ready undocumented students in the U.S. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
Olsson, C. A., Bond, L., Burns, J. M., Vella-Brodrick, D. A., & Sawyer, S. M. (2003).
Adolescent resilience: A concept analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 1-11.
Padilla, A. M. (1986). Acculturation and stress among immigrants and later generation indi-
viduals. In D. Frick, H. Hoefert, H. Legewie, R. Mackensen, & R. K. Silbereisen (Eds.),
The quality of urban life: Social, psychological, and physical conditions (pp. 100-120).
Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
Padilla, A. M., Cervantes, R. C., Maldonado, M., & Garcia R. E. (1988). Coping responses to
psychosocial stressors in Mexican and Central American immigrants. Journal of
Community Psychology, 16, 418-427.
Passel, J. S. (2006). The size and characteristics of the unauthorized migration population in
the U.S.: Estimates based on the March 2005 current population survey. Washington, DC:
Pew Hispanic Center.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Richman, J. M., & Fraser, M. W. (2001). Resilience in childhood: The role of risk and protec-
tion. In J. M. Richman & M.W. Fraser (Eds.), The context of youth violence: Resilience,
risk, and protection (pp. 1-12). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Ripple, C. H., & Luthar, S. S. (2000). Academic risk among inner-city adolescents: The role
of personal attributes. Journal of School Psychology, 8, 277-298.
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity. Protective factors and resistance to
psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598-611.
Sameroff, A. J., Seifer, R., Baldwin, A., & Baldwin, C. P. (1993). Stability of intelligence from
preschool to adolescence: The influence of social and family risk factors. Child
Development, 64, 80-97.
Seifer, R., Sameroff, A. J., Baldwin, C. P., & Baldwin, A. (1992). Child and family factors that
ameliorate risk between 4 and 13 years of age. Journal of American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 893-903.
Siantz, M. (1997). Factors that impact developmental outcomes of immigrant children. In
A. Booth, A. C. Crouter, & N. Landale, (Eds.), Immigration and the family: Research and
policy on U.S. immigrants (pp. 149-161). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin support
networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York: Teachers College Press.
Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (1995). The impact of employment on adolescent development.
In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of Child Development, 11, 131-166.
Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. (1991). Negative correlates of part-time employment during
adolescence: Replication and elaboration. Developmental Psychology, 27, 304-313.
Steinberg, L. D., Fegley, S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1993). Negative impact of part-time work
on adolescent adjustment: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology,
29, 171-180.
Stipek, D., & Weisz, J. (1981). Perceived personal control and academic achievement. Review
of Educational Research, 51, 101-137.
Suárez-Orozco, C., & Doucet, F. (2006). Migration and ethnic minorities. In L. Romanucci-
Ross, G. A. De Vos, & T. Tsuda (Eds.), Problems and prospects for the twenty-first century
(4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Altamira.
Suarez-Orozco, C., & Suarez-Orozco, M., (2001). Children of immigration. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Perez et al. / Resilient Undocumented Students 33
Suarez-Orozco, C., Suarez-Orozco, M., & Todorova, I. (2008). Learning a New Land:
Immigrant students in American Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Suarez-Orozco, C., Todorova, I., & Louie, J. (2002). Making up for lost time: The experience
of separation and reunification among immigrant families. Family Process, 41, 625-643.
Wang, M. C., Haertal, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1994). Educational resilience in inner cities.
In M. C. Wang & E. W. Gordon (Eds.), Educational resilience in inner-city America:
Challenges and prospects (pp. 45-72). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Werner, E. E., Bierman, J. M., & French, F. E. (1971). The children of Kauai: A longitudinal
study from the prenatal period to age ten. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of
resilient children and youth. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High-risk children from birth to
adulthood. New York: Cornell University Press.
Willig, A. C., Harnisch, D. L., Hill, K. J., & Maehr, M. L. (1983). Sociocultural and educa-
tional correlates of success-failure attributions and evaluation anxiety in the school setting
for Black, Hispanic, and Anglo children. American Educational Research Journal, 20,
385-410.
Wylie, R. (1979). The self-concept: Theory and research on selected topics (Vol. 2). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska.
Zautra, A. J., Guarnaccia, C. A., Reich, J. W., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (1988). The contribution
of small events to stress and distress. In L. H. Cohen (Ed.), Life events and psychological
functioning: Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 123-148). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Zhou, M. (1997). Growing up American: The challenge of immigrant children and children of
immigrants. Annual review of Sociology, 23, 63-95.
William Perez, PhD, is an assistant professor of education at Claremont Graduate University.
His program of research focuses on immigrant adolescent social development (e.g., ethnic
identity development, self-esteem, acculturation), academic achievement, Hispanic education,
and child and adolescent well-being.
Roberta Espinoza, PhD, is an assistant professor of sociology at California State University,
Fullerton. Her research interests include minority student access to higher education, social
and cultural capital, social networks, and Latinas/os in higher education.
Karina Ramos is a graduate student in counseling psychology at the University of Missouri–
Columbia. Having worked with organizations such as MALDEF and SALEF, her research
interests focus on the educational experiences and attainment levels among Latinos, particu-
larly undocumented youth.
Heidi M. Coronado, MA, is a doctoral student in education at Claremont Graduate University.
Her research interests include immigrant and minority student achievement and educational
access, youth in activism, ethnic identity development, narrative research, and critical pedagogy.
Richard Cortes, PhD, is a counselor at Glendale Community College. His primary research
interests are focused on social justice counseling issues and the psychological factors of
low-income minority and immigrant college students.
