gardner, roth, brooks-gunn

Adolescents’ Participation in Organized Activities and DevelopmentalSuccess 2 and 8 Years After High School: Do Sponsorship, Duration, and

Intensity Matter?

Margo Gardner, Jodie Roth, and Jeanne Brooks-GunnTeachers College, Columbia University

Using data from the National Education Longitudinal Study, the authors examined relations betweeneducational, civic, and occupational success in young adulthood and the duration and intensity ofparticipation in organized activities during high school. They also examined these relations as a functionof sponsorship (i.e., school- vs. community-sponsored organized activities). They found that youths whoparticipated in organized activities for 2 years demonstrated more favorable educational and civicoutcomes in young adulthood than those who participated for 1 year. More intensive participation wasalso associated with greater educational, civic, and occupational success in young adulthood—particularly among youths who participated in activities for 2 years. Educational attainment oftenmediated the relations between temporal measures of participation and young adult civic and occupa-tional outcomes. With the exception of analyses examining occupational success, findings varied little asa function of sponsorship. Of note, analyses revealed that both temporal measures of participation werepositively associated with young adult outcomes as many as 8 years after high school.

Keywords: organized activities, extracurricular activities, after-school activities, positive youth develop-ment, young adulthood

Growing evidence demonstrates positive associations betweenparticipation in organized activities outside of school hours andpositive youth development (Feldman & Matjasko, 2005; Ma-honey, Larson, & Eccles, 2005).1 Studies suggest that participationin organized activities is associated with fewer problem behaviors,better academic performance, and better psychosocial adjustment(Mahoney et al., 2005). Recent findings also suggest that relationsbetween participation in organized youth activities and positiveoutcomes may extend into young adulthood (e.g., Zaff, Moore,Papillo, & Williams, 2003). Accordingly, interest in organizedyouth activities has surged among families, policymakers, andresearchers during the last decade. More than half of Americanteenagers participate in organized activities (Mahoney, Harris, &Eccles, 2006), and recent federal, state, and city initiatives aim toincrease access to these activities (e.g., federal 21st Century Com-munity Learning Centers, California’s Proposition 49, Chicago’sAfter School Matters initiative).

Despite consensus on the overall value of organized activities,questions remain regarding the extent to which specific dimen-sions of participation (e.g., duration and intensity) are associatedwith short- and long-term success. Additionally, there is littleconsensus on the pathways linking participation in organized ac-

tivities to later developmental success. In this study, we investigatewhether the duration and intensity of participation in organizedschool- and community-sponsored activities during adolescenceare associated with educational, civic, and occupational success inyoung adulthood. We also explore one of the possible pathwayslinking participation in organized activities and positive youngadult outcomes: We examine the extent to which educationalsuccesses associated with participation in organized youth activi-ties may facilitate opportunities for greater civic and occupationalsuccess during young adulthood.

Organized Activities and Positive Youth Development

The literature on positive youth development provides a usefulframework for conceptualizing how youths’ experiences duringthe after-school hours may contribute to development. Theory andresearch on positive youth development emphasize the plasticity ofhuman development and suggest that cultivating positive, support-ive relationships with people and social institutions encourageshealthy development (Lerner et al., 2005; Roth, Brooks-Gunn,Murray, & Foster, 1998). According to this perspective, organizedactivities encourage healthy development because they providemore developmental supports and opportunities than other com-mon after-school pursuits, like watching television or hanging outwith friends. These supports and opportunities may include (a)physical and psychological safety, (b) appropriate structure, (c)supportive relationships, (d) opportunities to belong, (e) positive

1 Organized activities is a catchall phrase that includes any activity orprogram supervised by an adult that involves other youths and meetsoutside of school hours on a regular basis (Mahoney et al., 2005).

Margo Gardner, Jodie Roth, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, National Centerfor Children and Families, Teachers College, Columbia University.

This research was supported by Grant 2501 from the William T. GrantFoundation.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to MargoGardner, National Center for Children and Families, Teachers College,Columbia University, Box 39, 525 West 120th Street, New York, NY10027. E-mail: [email protected]

Developmental Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association2008, Vol. 44, No. 3, 814–830 0012-1649/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.814

814

social norms, (f) support for efficacy and mattering, (g) opportu-nities for skill building, and (h) the integration of family, school,and community efforts (Eccles & Gootman, 2002).

Various nomenclatures have been used to describe the healthyoutcomes associated with participation in activities that offer thesekinds of supports and opportunities. One influential taxonomy,termed “the five Cs,” assigns these outcomes to five categories: (a)competence in academic, social, and vocational areas; (b) confi-dence or a positive self-identity; (c) connections to community,family, and peers; (d) character or positive values, integrity, andmoral commitment; and (e) caring and compassion (Lerner, Fisher,& Weinberg, 2000). Preliminary evidence supports the theoreticalcontention that these five Cs load onto a single higher order latentconstruct and that all five Cs therefore make essential contribu-tions to individuals’ abilities to thrive in adolescence and adult-hood (Lerner et al., 2005). Although research on this higher orderthriving construct is still limited, empirical evidence supportspositive relations between participation in organized after-schoolactivities and many of the individual five Cs (see Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003a, 2003b).

The issue of self-selection, however, remains an obstacle todefinitive conclusions about the causal role of participation inorganized activities. Because participation in organized activitiesis voluntary and constrained by personal factors (e.g., motivation,skills, financial resources) and institutional factors (e.g., availabil-ity, transportation, costs), selection undoubtedly plays a role in thelink between participation in organized activities and developmen-tal success. Indeed, modest and mixed findings from randomizedstudies of after-school programs—one of the many types of orga-nized activities that youths participate in—suggest that the robustfindings observed in many nonexperimental studies may capitalizeon the influence of self-selection (see Harvard Family ResearchProject, 2006, for a review of experimental studies of after-schoolprograms). One approach that reduces, but does not eliminate, theinfluence of self-selection in nonexperimental research is to con-trol for factors known to predict both participation in organizedactivities and positive outcomes. The studies reviewed below,which informed our research questions, included such statisticalcontrols unless otherwise noted.

Dimensions of Participation in Organized Activities

Different organized activities offer different opportunities andsupports for development and may therefore encourage different“Cs” (Larson, Hansen, & Moneta, 2006; Roth & Brooks-Gunn,2003a, 2003b). Youths also differ with respect to the length (i.e.,duration) and frequency (i.e., intensity) of their participation inorganized activities (Simpkins, Little, & Weiss, 2004) and maythus have varied opportunities for developmental gains. Yet, withrelatively few recent exceptions, extant research typically com-pares the outcomes of nonparticipants with the outcomes of thosewho participate in any type of organized activity for any length oftime (see Feldman & Matjasko, 2005, for a review). In the presentstudy, we examine associations between three dimensions of par-ticipation in organized activities during adolescence—sponsorship(i.e., school vs. community sponsored), duration, and intensity—and the development of educational, civic, and occupational suc-cesses in young adulthood.

Some investigations of sponsorship suggest that participation inschool- versus community-sponsored activities should be differ-entially associated with specific outcomes. In particular, someargue that participation in school-sponsored activities may be morestrongly associated with educational outcomes (e.g., Kaufman &Gabler, 2004). A corollary to this view is that participation incommunity-sponsored activities should be more strongly associ-ated with civic outcomes. The reality, however, is that school-sponsored activities do not always focus on academics (e.g., ser-vice clubs, team sports), and community-sponsored activities donot always focus on promoting civic involvement (e.g., communityarts programs, sports leagues).

Accordingly, findings on the relations between sponsorship andoutcomes are mixed. Analyses of data from the National EducationLongitudinal Study (NELS) indicate that participation in school-sponsored, but not non-school-sponsored, extracurricular activitiesduring high school predicts higher grades in 12th grade and higherrates of college attendance 2 years later, even after controlling forprior grades (Marsh & Kleitman, 2002). Similar analyses of NELSdata indicate that more intensive participation in school-sponsored,but not non-school-sponsored, activities is positively associatedwith attending a competitive postsecondary institution (Swanson,2002). In contrast, other longitudinal studies have found thatyouths who participate in school- or community-sponsored activ-ities demonstrate similar educational outcomes (e.g., Casey, Ripke,& Huston, 2005), and at least one cross-sectional study found thatparticipation in community-sponsored activities is associated withbetter educational outcomes than participation in school-sponsoredactivities (Brown & Evans, 2002). There is also little support forthe contention that participation in community-sponsored, versusschool-sponsored, activities leads to greater civic involvement.Analyses of data from NELS and the National Longitudinal Studyof Adolescent Health indicate that political involvement duringadulthood is more strongly tied to participation in school-sponsored activities than to participation in community-sponsoredactivities during adolescence (McFarland & Thomas, 2006). Theextent to which sponsorship is associated with differences in youthand young adult outcomes therefore remains unclear.

Researchers have just begun to consider whether differencesamong youths in temporal dimensions of participation are associ-ated with differences in positive outcomes (see Roth, Malone, &Brooks-Gunn, 2007, for a complete review). There are at least tworeasons to expect such associations. First, research suggests thatrelationships with adult leaders, peers, and institutions may at leastpartly explain the association between participation in organizedactivities and positive developmental outcomes (Eccles & Goot-man, 2002; Roth et al., 1998). These relationships take time todevelop, and those who participate over longer periods of timemay be more likely to benefit from them. Second, those whoparticipate frequently, over an extended period of time, may reapthe rewards of lengthier and more frequent exposure to the oppor-tunities and supports that organized activities provide.

Reviews of a variety of types of after-school activities andprograms (e.g., Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Feldman & Matjasko,2005; Roth et al., 2007) reveal a dearth of studies on participationduration. A few recent studies, however, have identified associa-tions between participation in organized activities over multipleyears and positive adolescent and young adult outcomes—particularly educational outcomes. Longitudinal analyses of a large

815ORGANIZED ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL SUCCESS

sample of high school students indicate that although there are nodifferences in grades or attitudes toward school between nonpar-ticipants and 1-year participants in school-sponsored activities,youths who participate for 2 or 3 years earn higher grades, dem-onstrate more positive attitudes toward school, and have greateracademic aspirations than nonparticipants (Darling, 2005; Darling,Caldwell, & Smith, 2005). Analyses of NELS data also revealpositive relations between participation in organized activities overthree waves of data collection during middle and high school (vs.two waves or fewer) and multiple young adult outcomes (i.e.,college attendance, voting, and volunteering at age 20; Zaff et al.,2003). Finally, analyses of data from the Carolina LongitudinalStudy demonstrate positive associations between participation inhigh-school-sponsored activities over 2 years (vs. 1) and collegeattendance at age 20, particularly for youths with lower interper-sonal competence (Mahoney, Cairns, & Farmer, 2003).

Findings on the relations between participation intensity andyouth development are also limited and somewhat mixed. Forinstance, some have found significant positive associations be-tween the number of hours that adolescents devote to school-sponsored extracurricular activities and varied academic outcomes(e.g., high school grades, academic attitudes and aspirations, post-secondary attendance; Darling, 2005; Marsh & Kleitman, 2002),whereas others have identified only marginally significant rela-tions between time spent in school-sponsored extracurricular ac-tivities and adolescents’ grades (Cooper, Valentine, Nye, & Lind-say, 1999). The link between academic outcomes and the intensityof youths’ participation in community-sponsored activities isequally unclear. Although some evidence suggests that the inten-sity of adolescents’ participation in community-sponsored activi-ties is positively associated with achievement test scores (Cooperet al., 1999), studies have also found negative (Marsh & Kleitman,2002) and nonsignificant relations (Cooper et al., 1999) betweenmore intensive participation in non-school-sponsored activitiesand grades during adolescence. Finally, recent studies of partici-pation intensity measured without regard to sponsorship suggestthat intensity may be positively associated with concurrent (Rose-Krasnor, Busseri, Willoughby, & Chalmers, 2006) but not longi-tudinal (Busseri, Rose-Krasnor, Willoughby, & Chalmers, 2006)measures of high school academic functioning.

Further complicating the picture, findings from a few studiesindicate that at high levels, intensive participation may be associ-ated with adverse adolescent and young adult outcomes, particu-larly in the academic domain (Cooper et al., 1999; Marsh &Kleitman, 2002). These findings have been used to make theargument that too much time in organized activities distractsstudents from other important experiences (e.g., family time,schoolwork) and hinders development. This position, termed theoverscheduling hypothesis (Mahoney, Harris, & Eccles, 2006),draws support from a tempered version of a zero-sum theoreticalmodel, which suggests that at high levels of intensity, commit-ments to extracurricular activities compete with commitments toacademic activities and adversely affect academic performance(see discussion of the zero-sum and threshold model in Marsh &Kleitman, 2002). Adverse consequences are often observed onlyamong youths who participate at extremely high levels, however(Cooper et al., 1999; Marsh & Kleitman, 2002). For instance,recent analyses of adolescents’ time diaries from the Panel Studyof Income Dynamics—Child Development Supplement II found

that among some youths (often African American), participating inorganized activities for more than 20 hr per week predicted slightlylower scores on a few measures of well-being (e.g., self-esteem,frequency of parent–adolescent discussions) as compared with lessfrequent participation (Mahoney et al., 2006). Participating at thishigh level generally predicted more positive outcomes than non-participation, however. Moreover, among those participating lessthan 20 hr per week, more frequent participation generally pre-dicted better well-being (e.g., reading achievement, psychologicaladjustment, lack of substance use, and good parent–adolescentrelationships). These findings support the contention that withinthe normal range, more intensive participation is often associatedwith more positive outcomes.

The Present Study

Extant research suggests that relations between participation inorganized activities and positive youth and young adult develop-ment may vary as a function of sponsorship, duration, and inten-sity. Several unanswered questions remain, however. First, inves-tigations of these three dimensions rarely overlap. It is thereforeunclear whether and to what extent the implications of sponsor-ship, duration, and intensity vary as a function of each other. Forinstance, we know very little about differences in the associationsbetween temporal participation measures and youth developmentacross sponsorship categories. Additionally, it is unclear whetherthe positive associations between participation intensity and youthdevelopment vary as a function of duration. For instance, partici-pation duration may be so strongly associated with positive out-comes that among, youths who score high on duration, moreintensive participation offers few additional benefits. The benefitsrelated to high scores on duration may represent the ceiling ofbenefits attributable to participation in organized activities.

Second, although some researchers have examined associationsbetween participation in organized activities and young adult out-comes immediately following high school (i.e., age 20, or 2 yearsafter high school), the lack of available follow-up data has, untilrecently, prevented the examination of relations between partici-pation and outcomes later in young adulthood. Thus, it is unclearwhether the positive outcomes associated with participation inorganized activities are maintained throughout young adulthood.We address this question, examining positive young adult out-comes both 2 and 8 years after high school. We focus on outcomesin three domains that are developmentally relevant for youngadults: educational attainment, civic engagement, and occupationalsuccess. These three domains tap into four of the five Cs: Educa-tional attainment reflects positive development in the academicarea of the first C; civic engagement (e.g., volunteering, voting)reflects positive development in select aspects of the third, fourth,and fifth Cs; and occupational success reflects positive develop-ment in the vocational area of the first C. Because our data do notcontain a measure of the second C (i.e., confidence and positiveidentity), it was not possible to examine relations between partic-ipation measures and the higher order “thriving” construct thatarises from the five Cs.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that young adults whoare successful in one domain are often successful in others. Forinstance, U.S. Census data indicate that a greater percentage ofcollege-educated young adults (67%) than non-college-educated

816 GARDNER, ROTH, AND BROOKS-GUNN

young adults (38%) voted in a recent election (Holder, 2006).College-educated young adults also earn more income than non-college-educated young adults (U.S. Department of Education,2005). One plausible explanation for this pattern of findings is thatpostsecondary education heightens civic awareness and opens thedoor to career opportunities that are unavailable to those who donot continue their education beyond high school. Consequently,we examine the extent to which educational attainment mediatespositive relations between participation duration and intensity inadolescence and civic and occupational success in young adult-hood. To our knowledge, prior studies have not explicitly exam-ined these pathways.

In summary, using a national longitudinal data set, we attempt toaddress three sets of unanswered questions:

1. Is the duration of youths’ participation in organized activitiesduring high school positively associated with educational, civic,and occupational success as few as 2, and as many as 8, years afterhigh school? Do these relations vary as a function of sponsorship?

2. Among those who participate in organized activities duringhigh school, is more intensive participation linearly associatedwith better educational, civic, and occupational outcomes 2 and 8years after high school? Or, are there diminishing returns in youngadult outcomes at very high levels of intensity? Do associationsbetween intensity and young adult outcomes vary as a function ofduration? Do relations between intensity and young adult out-comes vary as a function of sponsorship?

3. Are associations between temporal participation measuresand positive civic and occupational outcomes mediated by educa-tional attainment?

In an effort to reduce the influence of selection biases, ouranalyses control for demographic characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status) that have been linked toparticipation in organized activities (Marsh & Kleitman, 2002;Wimer et al., 2006) and to developmental success in young adult-hood (Holder, 2006; Lopez & Kirby, 2005; Planty, Regnier, &Owings, 2003; U.S. Department of Education, 2005). Although itwas impossible to control for performance on prior measures ofoutcome variables (i.e., our models predict young adult outcomesthat have no adolescent equivalents), we control for a variety ofacademic, behavioral, and familial constructs that capture impor-tant dimensions of adolescents’ overall adjustment. Prior findingsfrom NELS suggest that constructs in these domains have signif-icant implications for participation in organized activities andpositive young adult outcomes (e.g., Marsh & Kleitman, 2002;Zaff et al., 2003). We acknowledge that many other unmeasuredcharacteristics may influence selection into activities, and that thepower to draw causal inference is therefore limited.

Method

Sample

Data for the present study come from NELS, a national, longi-tudinal study that began with an assessment of 24,599 8th gradersduring the spring of 1988. Follow-up assessments were adminis-tered during 10th grade (N � 19,394; 70.8% of 8th graders plus1,970 new responders added at 10th-grade follow-up), 12th grade(N � 19,220; 69.6% of 8th graders plus 2,093 new respondersadded at 10th- and 12th-grade follow-ups), 2 years after high

school (N � 14,915; 56.2% of 8th graders plus 1,093 new re-sponders from 10th- and 12th-grade follow-ups), and 8 years afterhigh school (N � 12,144; 46.3% of 8th graders plus 760 newresponders from 10th- and 12th-grade follow-ups).2 The samplefor the present study includes those who completed assessments in10th grade, 12th grade, and 2 and/or 8 years after high school (N �14,038). From this sample, we excluded those who had droppedout of high school because they lacked data on school-basedextracurricular activities (n � 2,009). Additionally, students whohad moved to a new high school between 10th and 12th grades(n � 848) or who had missing data on this variable (n � 152) wereexcluded owing to potential substantive differences in their highschool experiences. The analytic sample consists of the remaining11,029 students (56.9% of the 10th-grade sample).3

Using the entire sample of individuals who had completed atleast one of the surveys administered at 10th grade, 12th grade, 2years after high school, or 8 years after high school (N � 20,557),we compared our analytic sample (N � 11,029) with excludedyouths (N � 9,528) on three demographic dimensions: gender,race/ethnicity, and parent education. There were no significantdifferences between the analytic and excluded samples with re-spect to gender composition. There were, however, differencesamong the two samples on race/ethnicity and parent education.Relative to the analytic sample, excluded youths were less likely tobe Asian/Pacific Islander (3.9% excluded vs. 7.6% analytic),�2(1) � 101.249, p � .001, and more likely to be Hispanic (13.5%excluded vs. 12.1% analytic), �2(1) � 7.190, p � .01, or NativeAmerican (1.4% excluded vs. 0.9% analytic), �2(1) � 9.292, p �.01.4 Parents of excluded youths, relative to parents of youths inthe analytic sample, were also less likely to have obtained at leastsome postsecondary education (68.4% excluded vs. 71.1% ana-lytic), �2(1) � 14.962, p � .001. Table 1 presents demographicinformation for the analytic sample.

2 The number of new responders at 10th and 12th grades that we report(i.e., those who did not complete a questionnaire at 8th grade but didcomplete a questionnaire at 10th or 12th grade) differs from a similar setof numbers provided in official NELS documentation. The NELS docu-mentation reports the number of individuals added to the 8th-grade sampleat the 10th- and 12th-grade follow-ups (the resulting 10th- and 12th-gradesamples are referred to as “freshened” samples). However, in NELSdocumentation, the Ns for youths added to the freshened samples at 10thand 12th grades reflect only those added to the number of sampled8th-grade youths (N � 26,432). Not all sampled youths completed an8th-grade questionnaire, however. The Ns for new responders reported inthis article—which also include nonresponders sampled at 8th grade whocompleted 10th- and/or 12th-grade questionnaires—are larger than the Nsreported for youths in the freshened 10th- and 12th-grade samples in NELSdocumentation.

3 Sample sizes for each analysis vary from this figure owing to missingdata on the dependent and/or independent variables. The tables contain theexact sample size for each analysis.

4 Frequencies for ethnicity and parent education reported for the analyticsample in the text differ slightly from those reported for the analytic samplein Table 1. Percentages reported in the text are based on 2 � 2 cross-tabulations that use listwise deletion. In the text, missing data for individ-uals in the excluded sample affect percentages reported for the analyticsample.


Table 1Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics for Participation, Outcome, and Control Variables

Variable

Frequencies Descriptive statistics

N % M SD Min Max

Participation variables

DurationSchool-sponsored activities

Nonparticipants 771 7.51-year participants 1,844 17.92-year participants 7,708 74.7

Community-sponsored activitiesNonparticipants 1,641 15.91-year participants 2,832 27.52-year participants 5,830 56.6

IntensitySchool-sponsored activitiesa

1-year participantsb 1.06 1.28 0.00 5.002-year participantsc 2.19 1.24 0.00 5.00

Community-sponsored activitiesd

1-year participantsb 0.55 0.38 0.20 3.002-year participantsc 0.78 0.37 0.20 2.60

Young adult outcomes

Two years after high schoolPostsecondary attendance

Yes 8,175 74.8No 2,753 25.2

VolunteeringYes 4,589 45.9No 5,416 54.1

VotingYes 6,067 55.5No 4,871 44.5

Eight years after high schoolPostsecondary completion

Yes 3,727 40.5No 5,484 59.5

VolunteeringYes 3,114 34.1No 6,029 65.9

VotingYes 4,111 45.0No 5,019 55.0

Full-time employmentYes 7,123 76.9No 2,138 23.1

Prior year income $26,086 $20,955 $0 $500,000

Control variables

GenderMale 5,439 49.3Female 5,590 50.7

EthnicityBlack 1,125 10.2Hispanic 1,356 12.3Asian/Pacific Islander 842 7.6Native American 105 1.0White 7,576 68.8

Parent educationGreater than high school 7,627 70.8High school or less 3,139 29.2

10th/12th test scores 51.60 9.67 27.86 71.8210th/12th problem behavior 0.55 0.74 0.00 4.0010th/12th parental monitoring 2.21 0.58 1.00 3.00

a School-sponsored intensity scores reflect the total number of hours spent in an average week on all combined school-sponsored extracurricular activities.b For 1-year participants intensity scores reflect the frequency of participation during the single year in which youth participated. c For 2-year participantsintensity scores reflect the frequency of participation averaged across 10th and 12th grades. d Community-sponsored intensity scores were computed byaveraging frequency scores across five activities (religious activities, community youth groups, music/art/dance lessons, sports lessons, and communityservice).


Measures

Activity Participation Variables

Participation duration. At the 10th- and 12th-grade assess-ments, students reported whether (i.e., yes or no) and at what level(i.e., participant or leader) they participated in each of the follow-ing school-sponsored activities during the past year: sports, cheer-leading, pom-pom/drill teams, music groups, plays/musicals, stu-dent government, academic honor societies, newspaper/yearbook,service clubs, academic clubs, hobby clubs, and FFA/FHA/FTA(Future Farmers, Homemakers, and Teachers of America) organi-zations. Students also indicated how frequently they participated ineach of following five organized community-sponsored activitiesduring the past year: religious activities, community youth groups,music/art/dance lessons, sports lessons, or community service.5

We used responses to these items to construct four dichotomousmeasures of participation: participation in at least one school-sponsored activity during 10th grade, participation in at least oneschool-sponsored activity during 12th grade, participation in atleast one community-sponsored activity during 10th grade, andparticipation in at least one community-sponsored activity during12th grade.6

We constructed separate measures of the duration of youths’participation in school- and community-sponsored activities usingthese dichotomous participation variables. For each of these twotypes of activities, youths who did not participate during 10th or12th grade were assigned a score of 0 (nonparticipants), youthswho participated in 10th or 12th grade but not both grades wereassigned a score of 1 (1-year participants), and youths who par-ticipated in both 10th and 12th grades were assigned a score of 2(2-year participants). See Table 1 for frequencies.

Participation intensity. We used data on participation fre-quency to construct intensity variables. Students reported the totalnumber of hours that they spent in an average week on all com-bined school-sponsored extracurricular activities during 10th and12th grades. We recoded these response scales for consistencyacross 10th and 12th grades such that 0 � no participation in atypical week, 1 � less than 1 hr per week, 2 � 1–4 hr per week,3 � 5–9 hr per week, 4 � 10–19 hr per week, and 5 � 20 hr ormore per week. Students also indicated how often they participatedin each of the five aforementioned organized community-sponsored activities at each assessment (0 � never or rarely, 1 �less than once per week, 2 � at least once/twice per week, and 3 �everyday/almost everyday). Frequency scores were averagedacross these five items within each assessment period to yieldseparate 10th- and 12th-grade measures of community-sponsoredparticipation intensity.

Among 2-year participants, frequency scores were averagedacross 10th and 12th grades within sponsorship categories, yield-ing separate measures of school- and community-sponsored par-ticipation intensity. For 1-year participants, school- andcommunity-sponsored intensity scores reflect only the intensity ofparticipation during the year that youths participated. We presentdescriptive statistics for all four intensity variables in Table 1.

Young Adult Outcome Variables

We used data collected 2 and 8 years after high school toconstruct outcome variables in three domains: educational attain-

ment, civic engagement, and occupational success. In analyses ofoutcomes 2 years after high school we examined only educationalattainment and civic engagement. We did not examine occupa-tional measures 2 years after high school because many individualsat this age are enrolled in school full time. We examined successesin all three domains 8 years after high school. All outcome vari-ables are described below, and descriptive statistics are presentedin Table 1.

Educational attainment. We used postsecondary attendance(i.e., whether participants attended a postsecondary institution atany time after completing high school) as a measure of educationalattainment 2 years after high school. Eight years after high school,attainment was operationalized as completion of a 4-year postsec-ondary degree. We used self-reports of young adults’ highest levelof education to construct these dichotomous variables.

Civic engagement. We examined two dimensions of civicengagement: volunteering and voting. Dichotomous measures ofboth outcomes were constructed 2 and 8 years after high school.Two years after high school, we defined volunteering as partici-pation in at least one service activity sponsored by a postsecondaryinstitution (i.e., volunteering services to fellow students, volun-teering services to community groups) or a community-basedagency (e.g., organized volunteer work such as at a hospital,volunteer work for trade or professional organizations). Eightyears after high school, volunteering was defined as participationin one or more community-based service activities during the pastyear (i.e., volunteering for youth organizations, civic/communityvolunteering).

We used single items to measure voting 2 and 8 years after highschool. Two years after high school individuals indicated whetherthey voted in a state, local, or national election during the pastyear. Eight years after high school participants responded to thesame question but reflected on voting behavior over the prior 2years.

Occupational success. We examined two measures of occu-pational success: full-time employment and income. Eight yearsafter high school, a dichotomous measure of full-time employment(i.e., 35 hr or more per week) was constructed using self-reports ofhours worked per week. Self-reports of annual income, measuredcontinuously, were also obtained for the year prior to the 8-yearpost-high-school assessment (i.e., 1999). The income distributionwas positively skewed. Thus, we computed and used the naturallog of income in analyses.

5 Students also indicated whether they participated in organized activi-ties at the 8th-grade assessment. Because data on participation intensitywere not collected during 8th grade, we used only 10th- and 12th-gradeactivity data to construct participation variables.

6 The response scale for questions about community-sponsored partici-pation ranged from 0 to 3, where 0 � never or rarely participate, 1 �participate less than once per week, 2 � participate at least once or twiceper week, 3 � participate every day or almost every day. These items wererecoded into dichotomous variables, where responses of never or rarelywere reassigned a score of 0, and responses ranging from less than once perweek to every day or almost every day were reassigned a score of 1. Thus,a score of 0 may occasionally indicate very rare participation rather thannonparticipation. Previous studies using NELS data have recoded anddichotomized responses to these items in the same manner (e.g., Zaff et al.,2003).


Control Variables

We controlled for gender (1 � female), race/ethnicity (fourdummy variables: Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, NativeAmerican vs. White), and socioeconomic status (SES) in all mod-els. We used a binary parent education measure as a proxy for SES(1 � some education beyond high school). Additionally, we con-trolled for three measures of individual and family adjustment. Weaveraged (a) 10th- and 12th-grade scores on standardized tests(i.e., composite of math and reading scores) to yield a compositeindicator of high school achievement; (b) 10th- and 12th-gradescores on a measure of getting into trouble at school (0 � neverand 4 � 10 or more times per week) to yield a composite indicatorof high school behavior problems; and (c) 10th- and 12th-gradescores on an item indicating parents’ knowledge of their children’sfriends’ parents (1 � knows none of friends’ parents and 3 �knows many of friends’ parents) to yield a composite indicator ofparental monitoring (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics). Allthree adjustment variables were centered at their means.

Results

We followed a two-part analysis plan. First, we examined directand indirect relations between the duration of youths’ participationin school- and community-sponsored activities during high schooland positive young adult outcomes 2 and 8 years after high school.Second, we examined direct and indirect relations between participa-tion intensity and young adult outcomes in two subsamples of youths,1- and 2-year participants. We conducted analyses in Stata 8.0 (StataCorporation, 2003) using robust standard errors to account for theclustering of participants within high schools. Because of the largesample size and the number of models tested, we set the statisticalsignificance criterion at p � .01 in all analyses.

Participation Duration and Outcomes in Young Adulthood

Analyses examining participation duration proceeded in twostages. First, we used linear regression (in analyses of income) andlogistic regression (in all other analyses) to examine the relationsbetween the duration of participation in school- and community-sponsored activities and young adult outcomes, net of all controls.7

Duration variables were converted to dummy variables within eachsponsorship category, and 1-year participants were assigned to thereference category (see Table 2 and Model 1 analyses in Table 3).8

Second, we tested the extent to which postsecondary attendance(for 2-year outcomes) and completion (for 8-year outcomes) me-diated relations between participation duration and young adultcivic and occupational outcomes. We followed Baron and Kenny’s(1986) steps for testing mediation, which require (a) a significantrelation, c, between the independent and dependent variables; (b)a significant relation, a, between the independent variable and themediator; (c) a significant relation, b, between the mediator and thedependent variable while controlling for the independent variable;and (d) a significant reduction in the relation between the inde-pendent and dependent variables when the mediator is included asa predictor in the model (in this step, the relation between theindependent and dependent variables is denoted c�). In keepingwith these guidelines, we tested for mediation only where prioranalyses identified a significant direct relation between duration

and the outcome (i.e., a significant c path) and a significant relationbetween duration and our mediating variable, postsecondary atten-dance or completion (i.e., a significant a path). When these criteriawere met, we included postsecondary attendance or completion asan additional predictor in models predicting civic and occupationaloutcomes (see Model 2 results in Tables 3, 5, and 6).

We used Sobel tests to determine the statistical significance ofindirect relations through postsecondary education when the abovedescribed models revealed significant c, a, and b paths. The Sobel testassesses the significance of the product a � b, which is approximatelyequivalent to the quantity c – c� when using linear regression (MacK-innon, Warsi, & Dwyer, 1995). A standard error and z score for theterm a � b can be calculated using the following formulas: z score �ab/SEab, where SEab � (a2SEb

2 � b2SEa2)1/2 (Baron & Kenny, 1986;

Sobel, 1982). Because the Sobel test was developed for use withlinear models, a and b coefficients and their standard errors wereappropriately transformed using procedures for logistic models out-lined in MacKinnon and Dwyer (1993). The coefficients for theindirect paths computed using the Sobel method are thus reported astransformed indirect effects (TIEs). Results support complete media-tion when (a) the TIE is significant and (b) introducing postsecondaryattendance or completion as a predictor reduces the relation betweenduration and the outcome to nonsignificance. Partial mediation, on theother hand, is supported when the TIE is significant but introducingpostsecondary attendance or completion as a predictor does not com-pletely eliminate the significant relation between duration and theoutcome.

Direct Relations Between Participation Duration andEducational Attainment

The duration of participation in school-sponsored activities waspositively associated with educational attainment (see Table 2). Al-though 1-year participants and nonparticipants did not differ withrespect to postsecondary attendance 2 years after high school, theodds of attending a postsecondary institution were 54% higher among2-year participants than among 1-year participants (z � 6.15, p �.001). Eight years after high school, the odds of completing a post-secondary degree were 36% lower among nonparticipants than

7 The goal of this study was to examine the relations between partici-pation and intensity and young adult outcomes net of controls (rather thanto examine the attenuating effects of specific controls). We therefore do notpresent results for models without controls. Tables for models withoutcontrols are available from Margo Gardner upon request.

8 The primary goal of the analyses of participation duration was not todetermine whether 2 years of participation was associated with morefavorable outcomes than nonparticipation. As previously stated, numerousstudies have compared youths who participate in organized activities withyouths who do not participate. Our primary interest was in determiningwhether 2 years of participation was associated with more favorableoutcomes than 1 year of participation. Thus, 1-year participants, rather thannonparticipants, were assigned to the reference category. We did, however,conduct preliminary bivariate analyses to check the assumption that 2-yearparticipants demonstrate better young adult outcomes than nonparticipants.We found that, with one exception, 2-year participants showed morefavorable outcomes than both 1-year participants and nonparticipants. Theonly deviation from this pattern was the absence of any differences amongthe three participation categories with respect to full-time employment 8years after high school.


among those who participated in school-sponsored activities for 1year (z � –3.01, p � .01) and 78% higher among those who partic-ipated in school-sponsored activities for 2 years than among thosewho participated for only 1 year (z � 7.04, p � .001).

There were differences across all three community-sponsoredparticipation categories with respect to educational attainment (seeTable 2). Two years after high school, the odds of attending apostsecondary institution were 18% lower among nonparticipantsthan among 1-year participants (z � –2.62, p � .01) and 44%higher among 2-year participants than among 1-year participants(z � 5.43, p � .001). Eight years after high school, the odds ofcompleting a postsecondary degree were 24% lower among non-participants than among those who participated in community-sponsored activities for 1 year (z � –2.77, p � .01) and 49%higher among those who participated in community-sponsoredactivities for 2 years than among those who participated for only 1year (z � 6.19, p � .001).

Direct and Indirect Relations Between ParticipationDuration and Civic Engagement

Volunteering. Participation in school-sponsored activities waspositively associated with volunteering. Although 1-year partici-pants and nonparticipants did not differ 2 years after high school,Model 1 analyses (see Table 3) indicate that the odds of volun-teering 2 years after high school were 56% greater among thosewho participated in school-sponsored activities for 2 years thanamong those who participated for 1 year (z � 6.45, p � .001).Postsecondary attendance partially mediated this relation (seeModel 2, Table 3; TIE � .016, z � 5.54, p � .001). Eight yearsafter high school, Model 1 analyses (see Table 3) suggest that the

odds of volunteering were 46% lower among nonparticipants thanamong 1-year participants in school-sponsored activities (z �–4.69, p � .001) and 21% higher among 2-year participants thanamong 1-year participants (z � 2.70, p � .01). The inverse relationbetween nonparticipation (vs. 1 year of participation in school-sponsored activities) and volunteering 8 years after high schoolwas partially mediated by postsecondary completion (see Model 2,Table 3; TIE � –.004, z � –2.62, p � .01), and the positiverelation between 2 years (vs. 1 year) of participation in school-sponsored activities and 8-year post-high-school volunteering wascompletely mediated by postsecondary completion (see Model 2,Table 3; TIE � .008, z � 4.23, p � .001).

Participation in community-sponsored activities was alsopositively associated with volunteering. Two years after highschool, Model 1 analyses (see Table 3) indicate that the odds ofvolunteering were 33% lower among nonparticipants thanamong 1-year participants (z � – 4.94, p � .001) and 91%higher among 2-year participants than among 1-year partici-pants (z � 11.92, p � .001). Postsecondary attendance par-tially mediated both of these relations (see Model 2 in Table3; TIEnonparticipants � – 0.006, z � –2.57, p � .01;TIE2-year participants � 0.015, z � 5.00, p � .001). Eight yearsafter high school, Model 1 analyses (see Table 3) indicate thatalthough youths who participated in community-sponsored ac-tivities for 1 year did not differ from nonparticipants, the oddsof volunteering were 69% greater among those who participatedin community-sponsored activities for 2 years than among thosewho participated for only 1 year (z � 8.97, p � .001). Thepositive association between 2 years of participation incommunity-sponsored activities and volunteering 8 years after

Table 2Direct Relations (Odds Ratios) Between Participation Duration and Educational Attainment

Variable

Postsecondaryattendance 2 yearsafter high school

Postsecondarycompletion 8 yearsafter high school

Control variablesFemale 1.30** 1.21*

Black 1.41** 1.32Hispanic 1.54** 0.79Asian/Pacific Islander 2.11** 1.93**

Native American 0.91 0.42Parent education � high school 2.09** 2.13**

Test scores 1.10** 1.13**

Behavior problems 0.81** 0.83**

Parental monitoring 1.19* 1.30**

Duration variablesa

School-sponsored activities0 years 0.78 0.64*

2 years 1.54** 1.78**

Community-sponsored activities0 years 0.82* 0.76*

2 years 1.44** 1.49**

Wald �2 1,683.12** 1,719.45**

df 13 13N 9,679 8,289

Note. Each column is a separate regression model that predicts postsecondary outcomes.a One-year participants are the reference group within each sponsorship category.* p � .01. ** p � .001.


high school was partially mediated by postsecondary comple-tion (see Model 2, Table 3; TIE � .006, z � 4.02, p � .001).

Voting. School-sponsored participation was associated withvoting only when youths participated for 2 years. There were nodifferences between nonparticipants and 1-year participants onvoting 2 years after high school. Model 1 analyses (see Table 3)indicate that the odds of voting 2 years after high school were 25%higher among 2-year participants than among 1-year participants(z � 3.69, p � .001), however. Postsecondary attendance partlymediated this association (see Model 2, Table 3; TIE � .007, z �4.45, p � .001). Eight years after high school, although there wereno differences in voting between nonparticipants and those whoparticipated in school-sponsored activities for 1 year, Model 1 (seeTable 3) analyses indicate that the odds of voting 8 years after highschool were 21% higher among those who participated in school-sponsored activities for 2 years compared with those who partic-ipated for 1 year (z � 2.82, p � .01). This relation was notmediated by postsecondary completion.

Community-sponsored participation was also associated withvoting. Although there were no differences between nonpartici-pants and 1-year participants 2 years after high school, Model 1analyses (see Table 3) indicate that the odds of voting 2 years afterhigh school were 24% higher among 2-year participants thanamong 1-year participants (z � 4.10, p � .001). Postsecondaryattendance partially mediated this association (see Model 2 in

Table 3; TIE � .006, z � 4.15, p � .001). Eight years after highschool, Model 1 analyses (see Table 3) indicate that the odds ofvoting were 24% lower among nonparticipants than among thosewho participated in community-sponsored activities for 1 year(z � –3.39, p � .01) and 29% higher among those who partici-pated in community-sponsored activities for 2 years than amongthose who participated for only 1 year (z � 4.62, p � .001). Theserelations were entirely direct and not mediated by postsecondarycompletion.

Direct and Indirect Relations Between ParticipationDuration and Occupational Outcomes

Full-time employment. Model 1 analyses (see Table 3) re-vealed no significant relations between the duration of participa-tion in school- and community-sponsored activities and the odds offull-time employment 8 years after high school.

Income. Model 1 analyses (see Table 3) revealed no signifi-cant relations between the duration of participation in school- orcommunity-sponsored activities and income 8 years after highschool.

Participation Intensity and Outcomes in Young Adulthood

Intensity was measured differently for 1- and 2-year partici-pants. For 2-year participants, intensity scores reflect the average

Table 3Regression Coefficients for Relations Between Participation Duration and Civic and Occupational Outcomes

Variable

Two years after high school Eight years after high school

Volunteering Voting Volunteering Voting Employment Income

M1a M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2

ControlsFemale 0.99 0.97 0.93 0.92 1.29** 1.27** 0.98 0.97 0.44** — �0.33** —Black 1.33* 1.26* 0.75** 0.74** 1.68** 1.65** 1.34* 1.33* 1.06 — �0.03 —Hispanic 1.15 1.07 0.66** 0.65** 1.19 1.20 0.91 0.91 0.79* — �0.05 —Asian/Pacific Islander 1.07 1.00 0.35** 0.35** 1.11 1.08 0.52** 0.51** 0.66** — 0.00 —Native American 1.52 1.53 0.74 0.76 1.79 1.84 1.03 1.04 0.64 — �0.36* —Parent � high school 1.35** 1.21** 1.41** 1.36** 1.21* 1.16* 1.11 1.10 0.97 — 0.02 —Test scores 1.04** 1.02** 1.02** 1.02** 1.02** 1.01* 1.01** 1.01** 0.99 — 0.01** —Behavior problems 0.90* 0.93 0.90* 0.91* 1.00 1.02 0.89* 0.90* 0.91 — 0.01 —Parental monitoring 1.32** 1.28** 1.16** 1.15* 1.36** 1.34** 1.26** 1.25** 1.10 — 0.07** —

Durationb

School-sponsored0 years 0.82 0.88 0.85 0.86 0.54** 0.54** 0.91 0.91 1.11 — 0.00 —2 years 1.56** 1.47** 1.25** 1.21* 1.21* 1.18 1.21* 1.19* 1.11 — 0.03 —

Community-sponsored0 years 0.67** 0.69** 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.76* 0.77* 0.99 — �0.05 —2 years 1.91** 1.85** 1.24** 1.21** 1.69** 1.64** 1.29** 1.27** 1.01 — 0.02 —

Postsecondary education — 2.35** — 1.41** — 1.36** — 1.13 — — — —Wald �2 or Fc 938.33 1,069.61 580.30 616.65 498.34 514.04 334.69 333.94 255.22 — 33.16 —df 13 14 13 14 13 14 13 14 13 — 13, 1224 —N 8,887 8,857 9,687 9,648 8,232 8,173 8,221 8,162 8,338 — 7,370 —

Note. Each column is a separate regression model that predicts civic or occupational outcomes. All coefficients are odds ratios from logistic models,except for coefficients in income models, which are unstandardized betas from a linear model.a M1 � Model 1; M2 � Model 2. Dash indicates term or model was not tested. M2 was tested only when previous analyses (see Table 2) found directrelations between duration and postsecondary attendance/completion and M1 analyses found significant direct relations between at least one of the fourduration variables in a given model and the outcome. b One-year participants are the reference group in each sponsorship category. c Multivariate Waldchi-square values are reported for logistic models, and multivariate F statistics are reported for the linear income model (all are significant at p � .001).* p � .01. ** p � .001.


frequency of participation across 2 years. For 1-year participants,intensity scores reflect the frequency of participation during a1-year period. These differences necessitated separate analyses for1- and 2-year participants.9 Analyses for both subsamples pro-ceeded in three stages. First, we used logistic and linear regressionto examine direct relations between participation intensity andyoung adult outcomes after including controls (see Table 4 andModel 1 analyses in Tables 5– 6). School- and community-sponsored participation intensity variables were entered as predic-tors in separate regression models in order to prevent limiting thesample to those who participated in both kinds of activities (i.e.,because analyses use listwise deletion, cases with intensity data foronly one type of activity would be excluded from models exam-ining both types of activities simultaneously). Second, we addedquadratic intensity terms to these models to test for nonlinearrelations. Quadratic models were considered an improvement over

linear models if the quadratic term was significant at p � .01 andthe model R2 or pseudo-R2 value increased significantly uponincluding the quadratic term. Findings are reported only for qua-dratic models that meet these criteria. Third, following the proce-dure described for analyses of duration, we examined indirectrelations between participation intensity and young adult civic andoccupational outcomes via postsecondary attendance and comple-tion (see Model 2, Tables 5–6).

9 As noted above, intensity values were computed differently for 1-versus 2-year participants. Consequently, it was not possible to construct asingle intensity variable to be used in analyses examining interactionsbetween duration and intensity. We conducted separate intensity analysesfor 1- and 2-year participants as an alternative to interaction analyses.

Table 4Direct Relations (Odds Ratios) Between Participation Intensity and Educational Attainment

Variable

Postsecondaryattendance 2 years after

high school

Postsecondarycompletion 8 yearsafter high school

M1a M2 M1 M2

Sample: 1-year participants

Control variablesFemale 1.38* 1.23 1.21 1.23Black 1.06 1.47 1.50 1.20Hispanic 1.49 1.64** 0.83 0.82Asian/Pacific Islander 1.81 4.93** 2.27* 2.72**

Native American 0.96 1.08 0.23 0.66Parent education � high school 1.84** 1.97** 1.95** 1.67**

Test scores 1.08** 1.10** 1.13** 1.14**

Behavior problems 0.84 0.72** 0.79 0.78*

Parental monitoring 1.01 1.11 0.96 1.44**

IntensitySchool-sponsored 1.22** — 1.19* —Community-sponsored — 1.49* — 1.42

Wald �2 251.94** 453.83** 217.75** 420.45**

df 10 10 10 10N 1,680 2,642 1,373 2,218

Sample: 2-year participants

Control variablesFemale 1.34** 1.34** 1.29** 1.14Black 1.72** 1.32 1.33 1.23Hispanic 1.57** 1.38 0.79 0.75Asian/Pacific Islander 2.01* 1.26 1.81** 1.62**

Native American 0.70 0.81 0.42 0.40Parent education � high school 2.13** 2.09** 2.20** 2.24**

Test scores 1.10** 1.11** 1.13** 1.13**

Behavior problems 0.82** 0.87 0.84* 0.83*

Parental monitoring 1.26** 1.33** 1.32** 1.28**

IntensitySchool-sponsored 1.31** — 1.26** —Community-sponsored — 1.33* — 1.54**

Wald �2 1,122.36** 718.46** 1,346.93** 1,012.12**

df 10 10 10 10N 7,356 5,557 6,394 4,855

Note. Each column is a separate model that predicts postsecondary outcomes.aM1 � Model 1; M2 � Model 2. Dash indicates term was not tested.*p � .01. **p � .001.


Direct Relations Between Participation Intensity andEducational Attainment

More intensive participation in school-sponsored activities wasassociated with greater educational attainment (see Model 1 anal-yses, Table 4). Two years after high school, a one-unit increase inschool-sponsored participation intensity was associated with a22% increase in the odds of postsecondary attendance among1-year participants (z � 4.39, p � .001) and a 31% increase in theodds of postsecondary attendance among 2-year participants (z �9.22, p � .001). Eight years after high school, a one-unit increasein school-sponsored participation intensity was associated with a19% increase in the odds of postsecondary completion among1-year participants (z � 2.99, p � .01) and a 26% increase in theodds of postsecondary completion among 2-year participants (z �9.51, p � .001). The addition of a quadratic school-sponsoredintensity term significantly increased the pseudo-R2 value for themodel predicting postsecondary completion among 2-year partici-pants (R2

linear model � .2325, R2quadratic model � .2333), F(1, 6382) �

6.66, p � .01 (quadratic model intensity coefficients: ORlinear � 1.58,z � 5.27, p � .001; ORquadratic � 0.95, z � –2.66, p � .01). Thepositive association between school-sponsored participation intensityand the odds of postsecondary completion reached a plateau at anintensity score of 4.60.

More intensive participation in community-sponsored activitieswas linearly associated with greater educational attainment (seeModel 2 analyses, Table 4). Two years after high school, a one-unit increase in community-sponsored participation intensity wasassociated with a 49% increase in the odds of postsecondaryattendance among 1-year participants (z � 3.27, p � .01) and a33% increase in the odds of postsecondary attendance among2-year participants (z � 2.65, p � .01). Eight years after highschool, more intensive community-sponsored participation wasnot associated with postsecondary completion among 1-year par-ticipants. A one-unit increase in community-sponsored participa-tion intensity was, however, associated with a 54% increase in theodds of postsecondary completion among 2-year participants (z �4.59, p � .001).

Direct and Indirect Relations Between ParticipationIntensity and Civic Engagement

Volunteering. More intensive participation in school-sponsored activities was generally associated with better odds ofvolunteering. Two years after high school, Model 1 results (seeTable 5) indicate that a one-unit increase in school-sponsoredparticipation intensity was associated with an 18% increase in theodds of volunteering among 1-year participants (z � 3.85, p �.001). The addition of a quadratic school-sponsored intensity term,however, significantly increased the pseudo-R2 value for thismodel (R2

linear model � .0418, R2quadratic model � .0507), F(1,

1467) � 13.75, p � .01 (quadratic model intensity coefficients:ORlinear � 1.88, z � 5.06, p � .001; ORquadratic � 0.88, z � –3.95,p � .001). Among 1-year participants, the odds of volunteering 2years after high school increased as intensity increased from 0 (noparticipation during a typical week) to 2.41 (between 1–4 and 5–9hr per week) but decreased thereafter. Moreover, the odds ofvolunteering were slightly lower above an intensity score of 4.83(nearly 20 hr per week) than at an intensity score of 0. This

curvilinear relation was not mediated by postsecondary attendance(i.e., the quadratic term for school-sponsored participation inten-sity among 1-year participants did not predict postsecondary at-tendance). More intensive school-sponsored participation among2-year participants, however, was linearly related to volunteering 2years after high school (OR � 1.23, z � 9.57, p � .001). Thislinear relation was partially mediated by postsecondary attendance(see Model 2, Table 5; TIE � .025, z � 7.04, p � .001).

Eight years after high school, school-sponsored participationintensity was not associated with volunteering among 1-year par-ticipants. Among 2-year participants, however, Model 1 results(see Table 5) suggest that a one-unit increase in school-sponsoredparticipation intensity was associated with a 14% increase in theodds of volunteering 8 years after high school (z � 6.15, p �.001). Postsecondary completion partly mediated this relation (seeModel 2, Table 5; TIE � .010, z � 4.15, p � .001).

More intensive participation in community-sponsored activ-ities was also associated with better odds of volunteering. Twoyears after high school, Model 1 analyses (see Table 6) indicatethat a one-unit increase in community-sponsored participationintensity was associated with a 46% increase in the odds ofvolunteering among 1-year participants (z � 3.43, p � .01) anda dramatic 196% increase in the odds of volunteering among2-year participants (z � 12.91, p � .001). For 1-year partici-pants, this relation was partially mediated by postsecondaryattendance (see Model 2, Table 6; TIE � .017, z � 3.06, p �.01). The TIE through postsecondary attendance was not sig-nificant for 2-year participants. Eight years after high school,Model 1 results (see Table 6) suggest that a one-unit increase incommunity-sponsored participation intensity, though not asso-ciated with volunteering among 1-year participants, was asso-ciated with a 132% increase in the odds of volunteering among2-year participants (z � 9.90, p � .001). Postsecondary com-pletion partially mediated this association (see Model 2, Table6; TIE � .005, z � 3.03, p � .01).

Voting. We found limited relations between school-sponsored participation intensity and voting. Two years afterhigh school, Model 1 analyses (see Table 5) reveal no directrelations between school-sponsored intensity and voting among1- or 2-year participants. Eight years after high school, Model1 results (see Table 5) indicate that a one-unit increase inschool-sponsored participation intensity was directly associatedwith a 14% increase in the odds of voting among 1-yearparticipants (z � 2.92, p � .01). This relation was not mediatedby postsecondary completion. Among 2-year participants,school-sponsored participation intensity was not associatedwith voting 8 years after high school.

We also found few positive associations between community-sponsored participation intensity and voting. Two years after highschool, more intensive participation in community-sponsored ac-tivities was not associated with voting among 1-year participants.Among 2-year participants, however, Model 1 results (see Table 6)indicate that a one-unit increase in participation intensity wasdirectly associated with a 26% increase in the odds of voting 2years after high school (z � 2.88, p � .01). This relation was notmediated by postsecondary attendance (i.e., the TIE was not sig-nificant). Similarly, 8 years after high school, more intensiveparticipation in community-sponsored activities was not associatedwith voting among 1-year participants. Among 2-year participants,


however, a one-unit increase in community-sponsored participa-tion intensity was directly associated with a 34% increase in theodds of voting (z � 3.67, p � .001; see Model 1 in Table 6).Postsecondary completion did not mediate this relation.

Direct and Indirect Relations Between ParticipationIntensity and Occupational Outcomes

Full-time employment. More intensive participation in school-sponsored activities was not associated with employment among1-year participants. Among 2-year participants, however, Model 1results (see Table 5) reveal that a one-unit increase in school-sponsored participation intensity was associated with an 8% in-crease in the odds of full-time employment (z � 2.80, p � .01).

Postsecondary completion completely mediated this relation (seeModel 2, Table 5; TIE � .016, z � 5.31, p � .001). The intensityof youths’ participation in community-sponsored activities was notassociated with full-time employment.

Income. Although more intensive participation in school-sponsored activities was not associated with income among 1-yearparticipants, Model 1 results (see Table 5) reveal a positive asso-ciation between school-sponsored participation intensity and in-come among 2-year participants ( � .04, t � 5.50, p � .001).Postsecondary completion partially mediated this association (seeModel 2, Table 5; TIE � .029, z � 7.00, p � .001). The intensityof youths’ participation in community-sponsored activities was notassociated with income.

Table 5Regression Coefficients for Relations Between School-Sponsored Participation Intensity and Civic and Occupational Outcomes

Variable



M1a M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2

Sample: 1-year participants in school-sponsored activities

ControlsFemale 0.99 — 0.85 — 1.45* — 0.90 0.89 0.38** — �0.37** —Black 1.09 — 0.67 — 1.75* — 0.94 0.93 1.20 — �0.06 —Hispanic 1.34 — 0.51** — 1.41 — 0.59* 0.60* 0.77 — �0.12 —Asian/Pacific Islander 0.95 — 0.29** — 0.95 — 0.51* 0.48* 0.86 — 0.09 —Native American 1.94 — 0.51 — 1.98 — 0.57 0.59 0.41 — �0.28 —Parent � high school 1.45* — 1.23 — 1.32 — 1.00 0.98 0.85 — �0.02 —Test scores 1.03** — 1.01 — 1.01 — 1.01 1.00 1.00 — 0.01** —Behavior problems 0.88 — 0.92 — 0.96 — 0.94 0.94 0.89 — 0.00 —Parental monitoring 1.38* — 1.11 — 1.32 — 1.50** 1.52** 1.00 — 0.06 —

Intensity 1.18* — 1.07 — 1.10 — 1.14* 1.12 0.99 — 0.04 —Postsecondary education — — — — — — — 1.35 — — — —Wald �2 or Fb 65.73 — 69.35 — 38.21 — 52.51 56.31 55.73 — 11.55 —df 10 — 10 — 10 — 10 11 10 — 10, 682 —N 1,479 — 1,690 — 1,357 — 1,355 1,346 1,380 — 1,188 —

Sample: 2-year participants in school-sponsored activities

ControlsFemale 1.08 1.05 0.99 — 1.28** 1.26** 1.01 — 0.46** 0.45** �0.31** �0.32**

Black 1.43** 1.34* 0.80 — 1.79** 1.76** 1.52** — 1.08 1.04 �0.02 �0.03Hispanic 1.04 0.98 0.69** — 1.11 1.12 0.97 — 0.84 0.85 �0.04 �0.03Asian/Pacific Islander 1.04 0.99 0.38** — 1.16 1.14 0.55** — 0.67** 0.64** 0.01 �0.02Native American 1.37 1.40 0.86 — 1.60 1.65 1.08 — 0.77 0.78 �0.40 �0.38Parent � high school 1.40** 1.27** 1.49** — 1.26** 1.20* 1.22* — 0.99 0.93 0.03 0.00Test scores 1.04** 1.03** 1.03** — 1.02** 1.01* 1.02** — 0.99* 0.98** 0.01** 0.00Behavior problems 0.92 0.94 0.89* — 0.98 1.00 0.87* — 0.91 0.93 0.01 0.02Parental monitoring 1.33** 1.29** 1.18** — 1.40** 1.38** 1.26** — 1.13 1.11 0.07** 0.06*

Intensity 1.23** 1.20** 1.04 — 1.14** 1.13** 1.04 — 1.08* 1.05 0.04** 0.03**

Postsecondary education — 2.26** — — — 1.33** — — — 1.61** — 0.23**

Wald �2 or Fb 437.64 531.95 336.88 — 227.10 244.25 157.25 — 200.17 226.58 34.03 40.59df 10 11 10 — 10 11 10 — 10 11 10, 1149 11, 1147N 6,866 6,847 7,355 — 6,355 6,311 6,346 — 6,431 6,381 5,715 5,676

Note. Each column is a separate regression model that predicts civic or occupational outcomes. All coefficients are odds ratios from logistic models,except for coefficients in income models, which are unstandardized betas from linear models.a M1 � Model 1; M2 � Model 2. Dash indicates term or model was not tested. M2 was tested only when previous analyses (see Table 4) revealed directrelations between intensity and postsecondary attendance/completion and M1 analyses revealed significant direct relations between intensity and outcomes.b Multivariate Wald chi-square values are reported for logistic models, and multivariate F statistics are reported for linear income models (all are significantat p � .001).* p � .01. ** p � .001.


Discussion

Consistent with extant theory and research, our findings dem-onstrate that participation in organized activities during highschool is positively associated with educational, civic, and, tosome extent, occupational success in young adulthood. Our find-ings extend prior research and suggest that adolescents who par-ticipate in organized activities intensively and over a period of 2years (vs. 1) are particularly likely to achieve these successes inyoung adulthood. Perhaps most impressive, we found that theassociations between participation intensity and duration and pos-itive development extend well into young adulthood, as many as 8years after high school. The relations between temporal dimen-sions of participation and young adult outcomes are not alwaysstraightforward, however. Our findings build on prior studies that

have simply documented relations between participation durationand intensity and young adult outcomes (Marsh & Kleitman, 2002;Swanson, 2002; Zaff et al., 2003), and suggest that we mustconsider the complex interplay between duration, intensity, andsponsorship, as well as the paths that link participation to youngadult outcomes (see results summary in Table 7). We highlightthese new findings as we discuss each of our research questions.

We first asked whether adolescents who participate in organizedactivities over 2 years achieve greater young adult success thanthose who participate for a single year. In keeping with limitedextant research (e.g., Mahoney et al., 2003; Zaff et al., 2003), wefound that although 1 year of participation in school- orcommunity-sponsored activities during adolescence was associ-ated with some positive young adult outcomes, 2 years of partic-

Table 6Regression Coefficients for Relations Between Community-Sponsored Participation Intensity and Civic and Occupational Outcomes

Variable



M1a M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2

Sample: 1-year participants in community-sponsored activities

ControlsFemale 0.99 0.95 1.00 — 1.39* — 0.91 — 0.38** — �0.35** —Black 1.26 1.16 0.71 — 1.53* — 1.30 — 0.94 — �0.08 —Hispanic 1.16 1.05 0.60** — 1.20 — 0.91 — 0.66* — �0.10 —Asian/Pacific Islander 1.18 1.01 0.32** — 0.91 — 0.40** — 0.65 — 0.02 —Native American 1.84 1.81 0.54 — 2.52* — 1.41 — 0.62 — �0.28 —Parent � HS 1.42* 1.27 1.31* — 1.21 — 1.11 — 0.87 — �0.05 —Test scores 1.03** 1.01 1.02* — 1.02* — 1.01 — 1.01 — 0.01** —Behavior problems 0.88 0.93 0.96 — 0.94 — 0.93 — 0.91 — 0.01 —Parental monitoring 1.40** 1.36** 1.11 — 1.19 — 1.41** — 1.09 — 0.08 —

Intensity 1.46* 1.35* 1.22 — 1.27 — 1.02 — 0.90 — 0.01 —Postsecondary education — 2.73** — — — — — — — — — —Wald �2 or Fb 96.01 161.55 103.07 — 49.22 — 53.72 — 97.86 — 13.76 —df 10 11 10 — 10 — 10 — 10 — 10, 878 —N 2,387 2,376 2,648 — 2,206 — 2,201 — 2,242 — 1,983 —

Sample: 2-year participants in community-sponsored activities

ControlsFemale 0.98 0.97 0.89 0.88 1.16 1.15 1.03 1.03 0.46** — �0.30** —Black 1.34* 1.29 0.77 0.76* 1.61** 1.61** 1.36* 1.36* 1.16 — �0.04 —Hispanic 1.12 1.08 0.64** 0.63** 1.15 1.17 0.96 0.96 0.89 — �0.05 —Asian/Pacific Islander 1.01 0.98 0.39** 0.39** 1.15 1.14 0.56** 0.56** 0.70* — 0.04 —Native American 1.23 1.24 0.72 0.72 1.59 1.66 0.77 0.79 0.59 — �0.72 —Parent � high school 1.29* 1.18 1.45** 1.40** 1.18 1.13 1.06 1.05 1.06 — 0.06 —Test scores 1.04** 1.03** 1.03** 1.02** 1.02** 1.02** 1.02** 1.02** 0.99* — 0.01** —Behavior problems 0.87* 0.89 0.83** 0.83** 1.01 1.03 0.86* 0.87* 0.88 — 0.00 —Parental monitoring 1.29** 1.25** 1.25** 1.23** 1.32** 1.30** 1.22* 1.20* 1.16 — 0.07* —

Intensity 2.96** 2.93** 1.26* 1.25* 2.32** 2.25** 1.34** 1.33** 0.88 — 0.00 —Postsecondary education — 2.08** — 1.37** — 1.32** — 1.11 — — — —Wald �2 or Fb 401.27 482.05 276.95 290.11 222.91 321.24 126.10 124.93 143.57 — 23.17 —df 10 11 10 11 10 11 10 10 10 — 10; 1,088 —N 5,202 5,184 5,561 5,542 4,817 4,791 4,813 4,787 4,872 — 4,314 —

Note. Each column is a separate regression model that predicts civic or occupational outcomes. All coefficients are odds ratios from logistic models,except for coefficients in income models, which are unstandardized betas from linear models.a M1 � Model 1; M2 � Model 2. Dash indicates term or model was not tested. M2 was tested only when previous analyses (see Table 4) revealed directrelations between intensity and postsecondary attendance/completion and M1 analyses revealed significant direct relations between intensity and civic oroccupational outcomes. b Multivariate Wald chi-square values are reported for logistic models, and multivariate F statistics are reported for linear incomemodels (all are significant at p � .001).* p � .01. ** p � .001.


ipation was associated with even greater odds of postsecondaryattendance and completion and greater odds of civic engagement 2and 8 years after high school (see Table 7). This was true regard-less of sponsorship. Prior analyses of NELS data have identifiedpositive relations between multiple years of participation in orga-nized activities (measured without regard to sponsorship) andeducational and civic outcomes 2 years after high school (Zaff etal., 2003), but our results are novel in that they suggest that (a) therelations between participation duration and positive educationaland civic outcomes are maintained throughout much of youngadulthood (i.e., 8 years after high school) and (b) the relationsbetween participation duration and positive young adult outcomesvary little as a function of sponsorship.

Although our analyses do not permit definitive conclusionsabout causality, one explanation for the positive associations be-tween participation duration and educational and civic outcomes isthat youths who participate over 2 years (as opposed to 1 year)have more exposure to the developmental supports and opportu-nities afforded by organized activities and therefore derive greaterbenefits from participation. Another explanation is that longerperiods of participation facilitate the kind of positive interpersonalrelationships that are thought to encourage positive youth devel-opment (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Roth et al., 1998). Because ourmeasure of duration does not address changes in specific activitiesbetween 10th and 12th grade (e.g., a switch from school orchestrain 10th grade to school service clubs in 12th grade), the presentfindings cannot be interpreted as clear support for the secondexplanation. Both explanations should be investigated in futureresearch.

We did not find positive associations between participationduration and occupational success in young adulthood (see Table7). This was true regardless of sponsorship. This is not completelysurprising given results from recent analyses of NELS data sug-gesting that participation in varsity and elite school sports (e.g., asa team captain), but not intramural or junior varsity sports, is

positively associated with full-time employment and income inyoung adulthood (Carlson, Scott, Planty, & Thompson, 2005).These findings might be interpreted as evidence that intensityplays an important role in predicting occupational outcomes, aselite/varsity athletes likely invest significantly more time in sportsthan intramural/junior varsity athletes. Consistent with this hypoth-esis, our analyses revealed that more intensive participation inschool-sponsored activities among 2-year participants was, in fact,associated with greater occupational success in young adulthood.Participation in organized activities over longer periods of time atlower levels of intensity, however, may not be sufficient to facil-itate greater occupational success in young adulthood. It is unclearwhy the same does not appear to be true for educational or civicoutcomes (i.e., why duration alone is sufficient to predict greatereducational and civic success). One plausible explanation stemsfrom the fact that entry into the workforce often occurs long afterexiting high school (i.e., after completion of postsecondary edu-cation), and occupational success, unlike civic involvement, re-quires a daily commitment. Associations between activity partic-ipation and later occupational success may therefore occur onlyafter youths exceed a uniquely high participation threshold.

In our second research question, we asked whether more inten-sive participation in school- or community-sponsored activitiesduring high school is associated with more favorable outcomes inyoung adulthood. Consistent with studies that find positive rela-tions between participation intensity and youth and young adultoutcomes (e.g., Darling, 2005; Marsh & Kleitman, 2002), wefound many positive associations between participation intensityduring high school and educational and civic outcomes in youngadulthood. As discussed previously, we also found some positiveassociations between participation intensity and occupational out-comes in young adulthood (see Table 7). Moreover, analyseslargely failed to support the overscheduling hypothesis—the no-tion that very intensive participation limits opportunities for otherenriching experiences and hinders development (Cooper et al.,

Table 7Summary of Direct and Mediated Relations Between Participation Variables and Young Adult Outcomes

Variable


Postsecondaryattendance Volunteering Voting

Postsecondarycompletion Volunteering Voting Employment Income

Duration analysesSchool-sponsored

0 years NS NS NS � �/P NS NS NS2 years � �/P �/P � �/C � NS NS

Community-sponsored0 years � �/P NS � NS � NS NS2 years � �/P �/P � �/P � NS NS

Intensity analysesSchool-sponsored

1-year sample � �q NS � NS � NS NS2-year sample � �/P NS �q �/P NS �/C �/P

Community-sponsored1-year sample � �/P NS NS NS NS NS NS2-year sample � � � � �/P � NS NS

Note. NS � nonsignificant relation; � � significant direct relation; P � partial mediation (direct relation remains significant after adding postsecondarypredictor, but indirect path through postsecondary education is significant); C � complete mediation (direct relation is no longer significant after addingpostsecondary predictor, and indirect path through postsecondary education is significant); superscript q � quadratic relation.


1999; Mahoney et al., 2006; Marsh & Kleitman, 2002). We de-tected only two curvilinear associations between participation in-tensity and young adult outcomes. First, among 2-year partici-pants, the positive relation between more intensive participation inschool-sponsored activities and the odds of postsecondary com-pletion reached a plateau between 10–19 and 20 hr per week.Counter to the overscheduling hypothesis, however, the odds ofpostsecondary completion did not decline between 10–19 and 20hr per week. Second, up to 4 hr per week, more intensive partic-ipation in school-sponsored activities among 1-year participantswas positively associated with volunteering 2 years after highschool, but as participation increased to 5–9 hr per week, the oddsof volunteering declined. It is noteworthy, however, that for thevast majority of 1-year participants (the 87% who participated 4 hrper week or less), more intensive participation in school-sponsoredactivities predicted greater odds of volunteering 2 years after highschool. In the context of all other results obtained in the presentstudy, these findings provide little evidence for the adverse con-sequences of very intensive participation.

The positive associations between participation intensity andyoung adult successes were not unconditional, however, and wereoften contingent on the length of time that youths participated (seeTable 7). Among those who participated for 2 years, more inten-sive participation in school- and/or community-sponsored activi-ties was associated with more favorable educational, civic, andoccupational outcomes both 2 and 8 years after high school. Thissuggests that more intensive participation in organized activities isassociated with gains in young adult outcomes beyond thoseassociated with participation over an extended period of time (i.e.,2 years). On the other hand, among those who participated inorganized activities for only 1 year, there were very limited pos-itive associations between participation intensity and young adultoutcomes. More intensive participation in school-sponsored activ-ities among 1-year participants was ultimately (i.e., 8 years afterhigh school) associated with only postsecondary completion andvoting, and more intensive participation in community-sponsoredactivities among 1-year participants was not associated with any ofthe outcomes measured 8 years after high school. Prior studies ofNELS data have documented positive relations between participa-tion intensity and postsecondary attendance (e.g., Marsh & Kleit-man, 2002; Swanson, 2002), but to our knowledge, this is the firststudy to explicitly consider the intersection of intensity and dura-tion.

The present findings do not explain why more intensive partic-ipation should be associated with fewer positive outcomes whenparticipation is limited to 1 year. One contributing factor may bethat adolescents who participate in organized activities for 1 yeartend to participate less frequently than youths who participate overa period of 2 years (see Table 1). If the links between participationintensity and positive development are at least partly explained bygreater exposure to the developmental supports and opportunitiesprovided by organized activities, one plausible explanation is thatyouths must exceed a minimum intensity threshold (i.e., a mini-mum amount of exposure to supports and opportunities) beforepositive young adult outcomes are observed. The failure to findconsistently positive associations between intensity and youngadult outcomes among those who participated in organized activ-ities for only 1 year might stem from the fact that too few of theseindividuals exceeded the minimum intensity threshold. Our anal-

yses were not designed to address this question, however, andfuture research is needed to determine how much time youths mustspend in activities before positive outcomes are observed (Riggs &Greenberg, 2004).

Differences in the relations between participation intensity andyoung adult outcomes as a function of sponsorship are also diffi-cult to explain. Ultimately (i.e., 8 years after high school), wefound fewer associations between community-sponsored partici-pation intensity and young adult outcomes than between school-sponsored participation intensity and young adult outcomes. Dif-ferences in the average frequency of youths’ participation inschool- versus community-sponsored activities may, for reasonsdiscussed in the preceding paragraph, partly explain this discrep-ancy (i.e., on average, youths may spend less time in community-sponsored activities than in school-sponsored activities). We can-not make this determination on the basis of the present findings,however, because our school- and community-sponsored intensityscales are not equivalent. Future studies using more comparablemeasures of school- and community-sponsored participation inten-sity are needed in order to determine whether these discrepantfindings are a measurement artifacts, and if not, whether they maybe attributed to differences in youths’ participation intensity acrosssponsorship categories.

Sponsorship also had noteworthy implications for the relationbetween participation intensity and occupational outcomes. Wefound that among 2-year participants, more intensive participationin school-sponsored, but not community-sponsored, activities waspositively associated with full-time employment and income. Oneplausible explanation, worthy of further research, is that school-sponsored activities, relative to community-sponsored activities,offer developmental supports and opportunities that are morerelevant for later occupational success. It is also possible thatspecific types of school-sponsored activities are driving thesefindings. As previously noted, recent analyses of NELS data showthat participation in elite school-sponsored athletics is positivelyassociated with full-time employment and income (Carlson et al.,2005). If relations between participation intensity and occupationaloutcomes are specific to school-sponsored sports, this would ex-plain why we did not find associations between community-sponsored participation intensity and occupational success. To testthis hypothesis, future investigations should examine relationsbetween participation intensity and occupational outcomes acrossdifferent types of activities (varsity sports vs. band/orchestra,academic clubs, etc.).

In our final research question, we asked whether participationduration and intensity are indirectly associated with positive youngadult civic and occupational outcomes via educational attainment.Except for the fully direct associations between participation andvoting 8 years after high school, we found that all significantrelations between the duration of participation in organized activ-ities during adolescence and young adult civic and occupationaloutcomes were at least partly mediated by postsecondary atten-dance or completion (see Table 7). Similar findings emerged inanalyses of participation intensity—particularly with respect tooutcomes measured 8 years after high school. With the exceptionof relations between intensity and voting, all significant relationsbetween participation intensity and civic and occupational out-comes 8 years after high school were at least partly mediated bypostsecondary completion. In other words, youths who partici-


pated in organized activities more frequently and/or over a longerperiod of time were more likely to attend and graduate from apostsecondary institution and, in turn, were more likely to volun-teer and achieve occupational success 8 years after high school.These findings are consistent with the notion that completion of a4-year postsecondary degree encourages civic awareness andopens the door to career opportunities that may be unavailable tothose who do not continue their education beyond high school. Toour knowledge, these findings are a novel contribution to theliterature on temporal participation measures and civic and occu-pational success in young adulthood.

Although our findings make a relatively compelling case for thevalue of intensive involvement in organized activities over aperiod of more than 1 year, it is important to acknowledge severallimitations. First, although we have controlled for a number ofselection factors, it is never possible to control for all factors thatpredict both participation and outcomes. Unmeasured selectionfactors may at least partly account for the apparent relationsbetween temporal participation measures and positive young adultoutcomes. Likewise, we cannot rule out the possibility that selec-tion at least partly explains the observed relations between post-secondary education and civic and occupational outcomes. Recentfindings suggest that many of the cognitive and socioemotionalskills that predict educational attainment also predict occupationaloutcomes (Heckman, Stixrud, & Urzua, 2006). We therefore cau-tion against attributing a causal role to participation in organizedactivities or to postsecondary attendance and completion. More-over, we suggest that future studies include analyses that moreexplicitly consider the role of selection (e.g., analyses examininginteractions between temporal measures of participation and youthcharacteristics related to selection).

Second, our measures of participation are general and do notassess several more specific dimensions of participation that haveprobable implications for young adult outcomes. Although wefound that lengthier periods of involvement in organized activitieswere associated with better young adult outcomes, our measure ofduration did not assess the continuity of youths’ participation inspecific activities (e.g., whether youths participated in band in 10thand 12th grades or switched to an academic club in 12th grade).Additionally, our measure of duration did not distinguish between1-year participants who dropped out of activities after 10th gradeversus those who joined activities during 12th grade. Analysesexamining these detailed aspects of duration were beyond thescope of the present study, but they are important steps for futureresearch. Conclusions about the value of more intensive participa-tion must also be tempered by recognition of the imprecise methodof measuring participation frequency. Participation in some activ-ities fluctuates markedly across seasons (e.g., marching bandspractice more intensively in the fall than in the spring) and may notbe adequately captured by measures of the frequency of partici-pation in an “average” week. Intensity measures that do not ac-count for these fluctuations (such as those available in NELS) mayresult in inaccurately estimated intensity coefficients for youth inseasonal activities (McHale, Crouter, & Tucker, 2001).

Third, we did not consider the implications of simultaneousparticipation in more than one kind of activity. Our findingssuggest that school- and community-sponsored activities are sim-ilarly associated with young adult outcomes, but it is impossible todetermine whether this is because school- and community-

sponsored activities are truly associated with similar young adultoutcomes or because adolescents who participate in one kind ofactivity also participate in the other. This is a question we plan toaddress in future research.

Finally, though the NELS data set lacks measures of activityquality, it is important to point out that the positive relationsbetween participation duration and intensity and young adult out-comes likely depend on the quality of the activities that youthsparticipate in. Several studies highlight the developmental risksassociated with participation in poor quality activities (e.g., Ma-honey & Stattin, 2000; Smith & Smoll, 1997; Vandell, Shumow, &Posner, 2005). Thus, we strongly caution against the conclusionthat intensive participation in any organized activity over a periodof more than 1 year, regardless of quality, should necessarilypredict positive young adult outcomes.

Despite these qualifications, the results of the present study clearlysuggest that greater involvement in organized activities during highschool, whether measured in terms of duration or intensity, is asso-ciated with better odds of educational, civic, and, to some extent,occupational success in young adulthood. Our findings further indi-cate that adolescents who score high on both temporal dimensions ofparticipation (i.e., duration and intensity) may be particularly likely todemonstrate advantageous outcomes as young adults. Finally, ourresults show that, with few exceptions, the developmental implica-tions of participation duration and intensity are similar across spon-sorship categories. Although longer term, intensive participation inorganized activities was associated with occupational success onlyamong those who participated in school-sponsored activities, longerterm, intensive participation in school- or community-sponsored ac-tivities was often associated with better educational and civic (partic-ularly volunteering) outcomes. These findings provide a nuancedview of the associations between participation in organized activitiesand young adult development and extend prior studies that havemeasured participation without regard to duration, intensity, or spon-sorship. The mechanisms that link participation duration and intensityto positive young adult outcomes remain poorly understood, however.We find that educational success partly explains the link betweenparticipation in organized activities and young adult civic and occu-pational success, but the pathways that link participation duration andintensity to educational success remain less clear. This is a criticallyimportant question for future research, and the answer may be the keyto developing youth activities that prepare adolescents to meet thechallenges of young adulthood.

References

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variabledistinction in social psychological research. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Brown, R., & Evans, W. P. (2002). Extracurricular activity and ethnicity:Creating greater school connection among diverse student populations.Urban Education, 37, 41–58.

Busseri, M. A., Rose-Krasnor, L., Willoughby, T., & Chalmers, H. (2006).A longitudinal investigation of breadth and intensity of youth activityinvolvement and successful development. Developmental Psychology,42, 1313–1326.

Carlson, D., Scott, L., Planty, M., & Thompson, J. (2005). What is thestatus of high school athletes 8 years after their senior year? (NationalCenter for Education Statistics Rep. No. 2005303). Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.


Casey, D. M., Ripke, M. N., & Huston, A. C. (2005). Activity participation andthe well-being of children and adolescents in the context of welfare reform.In J. L. Mahoney, R. W. Larson, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activitiesas contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after-school andcommunity programs (pp. 65–84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cooper, H., Valentine, J. C., Nye, B., & Lindsay, J. J. (1999). Relationshipsbetween five after-school activities and academic achievement. Journalof Educational Psychology, 91, 369–378.

Darling, N. (2005). Participation in extracurricular activities and adolescentadjustment: Cross-sectional and longitudinal findings. Journal of Youthand Adolescence, 34, 493–505.

Darling, N., Caldwell, L. L., & Smith, R. (2005). Participation in school-based extracurricular activities and adolescent adjustment. Journal ofLeisure Research, 37, 51–76.

Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs topromote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Feldman, A., & Matjasko, J. L. (2005). The role of school-based extracur-ricular activities in adolescent development: A comprehensive reviewand future directions. Review of Educational Research, 75, 159–210.

Harvard Family Research Project. (2006). Learning from small-scale ex-perimental evaluations of after school programs (Out of School TimeEvaluation Snapshot No. 8). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate Schoolof Education.

Heckman, J. J., Stixrud, J., & Urzua, S. (2006). The effects of cognitive andnoncognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior.Journal of Labor Economics, 24, 411–482.

Holder, K. (2006). Voting and registration in the election of November2004 [Electronic version]. U.S. Census Bureau Current PopulationReports (March). Retrieved June 24, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20–556.pdf

Kaufman, J., & Gabler, J. (2004). Cultural capital and the extracurricularactivities of girls and boys in the college attainment process. Poetics, 32,145–168.

Larson, R. W., Hansen, D. M., & Moneta, G. (2006). Differing profiles ofdevelopmental experiences across types of organized youth activities.Developmental Psychology, 42, 849–863.

Lerner, R. M., Fisher, C. B., & Weinberg, R. A. (2000). Toward a sciencefor and of the people: Promoting civil society through the application ofdevelopmental science. Child Development, 71, 11–20.

Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gests-dottir, S., et al. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in com-munity youth development programs, and community contributions offifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H study ofpositive youth development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 17–71.

Lopez, M. H., & Kirby, E. (2005). Electoral engagement among minorityyouth. College Park: University of Maryland, Center for Information andResearch on Civic Learning and Engagement.

MacKinnon, D. P., & Dwyer, J. H. (1993). Estimating mediated effects inprevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17, 144–158.

MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation study ofmediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 41–62.

Mahoney, J. L., Cairns, B. D., & Farmer, T. W. (2003). Promoting interper-sonal competence and educational success through extracurricular activityparticipation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 409–418.

Mahoney, J. L., Harris, A. L., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Organized activityparticipation, positive youth development, and the over-scheduling hy-pothesis. Society for Research in Child Development Social PolicyReport, 20(4), 1–30.

Mahoney, J. L., Larson, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Organized activitiesas contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after-school andcommunity programs. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mahoney, J. L., & Stattin, H. (2000). Leisure activities and adolescentantisocial behavior: The role of structure and social context. Journal ofAdolescence, 23, 113–127.

Marsh, H. W., & Kleitman, S. (2002). Extracurricular school activities: Thegood, the bad, and the nonlinear. Harvard Educational Review, 72,464–511.

McFarland, D. A., & Thomas, R. J. (2006). Bowling young: How youthvoluntary associations influence adult political participation. AmericanSociological Review, 71, 401–425.

McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Tucker, C. J. (2001). Free-time activitiesin middle childhood: Links with adjustment in early adolescence. ChildDevelopment, 72, 1764–1778.

Planty, M., Regnier, M., & Owings, J. (2003). Volunteer service by youngpeople from high school through early adulthood (NCES 2004–365).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics.

Riggs, N. R., & Greenberg, M. T. (2004). After-school youth developmentprograms: A developmental–ecological model of current research. Clin-ical Child and Family Psychology Review, 7, 177–190.

Rose-Krasnor, L., Busseri, M. A., Willoughby, T., & Chalmers, H. (2006).Breadth and intensity of youth activity involvement as contexts forpositive development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 385–499.

Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003a). What is a youth developmentprogram? Identifying defining principles. In R. M. Lerner, F. Jacobs, &D. Wertlieb (Eds.), Promoting positive child, adolescent, and familydevelopment: A handbook of program and policy innovations (Vol. 2,pp. 197–224). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003b). Youth development programs: Risk,prevention, and policy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, 170–182.

Roth, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Murray, L., & Foster, W. (1998). Promotinghealthy adolescents: Synthesis of youth development program evalua-tions. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 423–459.

Roth, J., Malone, L. M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2007). Series on time mattersin organized activities. New York: National Center for Children andFamilies, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Simpkins, S. C., Little, P. M. D., & Weiss, H. D. (2004). Understandingand measuring attendance in out-of-school time programs. Cambridge,MA: Harvard Family Research Project.

Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1997). Coaching the coaches: Youth sportsas a scientific and applied behavioral setting. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 6, 16–21.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects instructural equation models. Social Methodology, 13, 290–312.

Stata Corporation (2003). Intercooled Stata for Windows (Version 8.0)[Computer software]. College Station, TX: Author.

Swanson, C. B. (2002). Spending time or investing time? Involvement inhigh school curricular and extracurricular activities as strategic action.Rationality and Society, 14, 431–471.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Digest of education. Washington,DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved June 24, 2006,from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/foreword.asp

Vandell, D. L., Shumow, L., & Posner, J. (2005). After-school programsfor low-income children: Differences in program quality. In J. L. Ma-honey, R. W. Larson, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activities ascontexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after-school andcommunity programs (pp. 437–456). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wimer, C., Bouffard, S. M., Caronongan, P., Dearing, E., Simpkins, S.,Little, P. M. D., et al. (2006). What are kids getting into these days?Demographic differences in youth out-of-school time participation.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.

Zaff, J. F., Moore, K. A., Papillo, A. R., & Williams, S. (2003). Implica-tions of extracurricular activity participation during adolescence onpositive outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 599–630.

Received January 5, 2007Revision received October 17, 2007

Accepted November 29, 2007 �


gardner, roth, brooks-gunn

Documents