RESEARCH SERVING CALIFORNIA CPRC Brief Vol.14, No. 8 December 2002 How Neighborhoods Matter for Immigrant Adolescents Min Zhou CPRC In the United States, school-age children spend an examine ways in which neighborhood-based social average of only 180 days in school. During the structures influence immigrant children’s after- school year they spend at least three after-school school life.We focused on three specific questions: hours per day either in supervised activities of some sort, at home by themselves, or simply hanging out ᮣ What types of social structures exist at the with friends—often on the streets. Children are neighborhood level, and how do they vary by most at risk of being crime victims during the hours race and ethnicity? of 2:00 and 8:00 p.m.—when most juvenile crime ᮣ How do neighborhood-based social structures takes place. Nationwide, at least 8 million—and up interact with one another, as mediated by to as many as 15 million—children are left alone race and ethnicity, to contribute to community and unsupervised in after-school hours. Such chil- building? dren are more likely to receive poor grades and drop out of school than those who are involved in super- ᮣ What types of social relations—with peers, par- vised, constructive activities. ents, coethnics, neighbors, and local leaders—do different neighborhood-based social structures Immigrants are highly concentrated in the big cities foster and how may these social relations affect of America and, within them, in the inner-city children’s belief in education, occupational aspi- neighborhoods. In these neighborhoods, children rations, and sense of direction and purpose? often live in families with both parents working full-time—some at several jobs on different shifts. Research Methods Aside from juggling work and household responsi- We considered neighborhood-based social struc- bilities, many immigrant parents have low levels of tures to be organizations or institutions that include education and job skills, lack familiarity with the churches, cultural centers, and other nonprofit com- host society,and speak little or no English. munity-based organizations, as well as various pri- Today,many immigrant neighborhoods are plagued vate businesses serving children and youths, such as with poverty, inadequate schools, family disruption, after-school tutoring, SAT preparation schools, and single parenthood, teenage pregnancies, youth karate studios. We also regarded economic institu- gangs, violent crimes, drug abuse and alcoholism, tions—restaurants,bookstores, arcades, beauty salons, and anti-intellectual youth subcultures. Such unset- barbershops, credit unions, and doctors offices—as tling environments put immigrant children of the part of social structures to the extent that inner city at greater risk than those living elsewhere. they play a role in the social life of local # residents and their communities. We studied the space between home and school in three immigrant neighborhoods in Los Angeles We defined neighborhoods geographic- —Chinatown, Koreatown, and Pico Union—to ally by census tracts, taking into account FIAT LUX CALIFORNIA POLICY RESEARCH CENTER UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA city boundaries, some community-based organiza- Koreatown was shared by Koreans, Mexicans, tions, and the opinion of local residents.We use the Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and other Asians (mostly term “community” to suggest an interlocking sys- Filipinos, along with some Chinese and Southeast tem of social structures based on a shared identity, a Asians). Although Koreans experienced impressive sense of cultural heritage, as well as shared values population growth—(164%) between 1980 and and norms. 1990—they made up only one-fifth of the neigh- borhood’s population (about two-thirds of the Our fieldwork included four components: pre- Asians were Korean, and other Asians were mostly arranged, one-on-one interviews with adolescents Filipinos). Not surprisingly, more than half of the and adults with teenage children; numerous random residents were Latinos, among whom 28% were interviews with parents,local leaders,social workers, Salvadorans, 16% Guatemalans, and 40% Mexicans. and business owners; nonintrusive participant obs- Like Pico Union, Koreatown was also losing its ervations of structured activities and random gath- non-Latino white population. erings; and participant observations with researchers doing volunteer work in selective publicly funded All three neighborhoods are overwhelmingly dom- programs for children and parents, private after- inated by foreign-born populations, especially re- school services, and cultural centers. We also cent arrivals. In Pico Union and Koreatown, about analyzed various data from the U.S. census, the Cali- two-thirds of the immigrants arrived in the United fornia Department of Education, the Los Angeles States after 1980. Unified School District, and the mainstream as well Public schools reflect these demographic patterns. as ethnic media. In the high school serving the three neighborhoods, Findings 88% of its 4,888-member student body are Latino and 9% are Asian. Forty-five percent of the students Three demographic patterns—racial makeup, nativ- are classified as “English learners” (formerly limited- ity, and poverty—stand out. First, as of 1990, all English proficiency), and more than 75% are quali- three neighborhoods were minority-dominant. For fied for receiving free or subsidized lunches—an example, even though Chinatown is Chinese- indicator of poverty. In one of the neighborhood dominated (60% Chinese and 15.6% other Asian), middle schools, 95% of the 3,193-member student many of its residents were ethnic Chinese from body are Latino and 4% are Asian. Fifty-five percent Vietnam and Southeast Asia.The Latinos in China- are classified as English learners, and 85% received town were mostly Mexicans. free or subsidized lunch. Between 1980 and 1990, Chinatown experienced Residents of these neighborhoods are generally only modest growth. The growth of the Chinese poorly educated, low skilled, and poverty stricken. population seemed to be offset by the decline of About two-thirds of adults in Chinatown and Pico other Asians (primarily Japanese and Filipinos). Union lack high-school diplomas and very few Chinatown’s non-Latino white population grew have college degrees. In Koreatown, the proportion during this period, but it was unclear whether this without a high-school diploma (44%) is com- gain was due to gentrification or the influx of non- paratively lower, but still twice as high as that of Latino white immigrants. non-Latino whites (22%). Although twice as many Latinos dominated the Pico Union neighborhood, Koreatown residents have college degrees (16%) but they were a mixture of Mexicans (45%), Salva- compared to the other two neighborhoods, the dorans (31%), and Guatemalans (14%). Most of the number is significantly lower than that of non- Latinos were recent immigrants, and undocu- Latino whites (21%). mented immigrants were overrepresented. Central Americans in this neighborhood were the fastest- Ethnic Businesses and Social Structures growing group, at a rate of 90% between 1980 and A wide range of retail businesses thrive in the three 1990. Pico Union’s Asian population also grew fast, neighborhoods. Upscale restaurants, coffee shops, at a rate of 73%, and its non-Latino white popula- and retail stores are found in Chinatown and Korea- tion was diminishing. town, but not in Pico Union.The upscale businesses in Chinatown tend to attract suburban coethnics Non-English language TV stations, newspapers and and non-Latino white families, urban professionals, periodicals are important sources of information for and tourists, while those in Koreatown tend to at- all three neighborhoods. While all ethnic media tract predominantly suburban middle-class Korean similarly cover national and international news, families and a weekday lunch crowd of multiethnic business and commerce, entertainment, and sports, professionals. there is a clear distinction between the Chinese- or Korean-language media and the Spanish-language All three neighborhoods also have various ethnically media in education-related coverage. specific businesses and professional services (e.g., herbal doctors, medicine stores, acupuncture clinics, Chinese- and Korean-language media have regular legal offices, financial institutions, barbers, groceries, and substantial forums and information sessions on and ethnic bookstores). But such businesses in education and local schools, such as the timing and Koreatown or Chinatown are mostly owned by preparation of various standardized tests, school coethnics, while those in Pico Union tend to be (college and high school) ranking, scholarships, pri- owned by entrepreneurs of various national origins. vate tutoring, and various private educational insti- tutions and services. Such coverage is lacking in the There are noticeable differences between the two Spanish-language media. Asian neighborhoods. The variety of commercial businesses in Koreatown is quite similar to that in Child and Youth Organizations Chinatown, but its density level is much higher.The and Afterschool Services most distinctive feature is its ethnic retail and rec- Formal organizations and institutions with specific reational entertainment industry,featuring a colorful programs serving children or youths exist in all three nightlife and a focus on golfing neighborhoods. The numbers and types of both Many suburban Korean families from as far away as nonprofit