The growing Latino community is over one-fourth of California's total population, and will be around one-third by the year 2000. The effects of such rapid population growth on daily life in the state of California is the subject of the California Identity Project (C.I.P.), funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation of Menlo Park. The goals of this project are simple:
This monograph is a companion piece to Redefining California: Latino Social Engagement in a Multicultural Society (Hurtado, Hayes-Bautista, Valdez & Hernandez, 1992). Its purpose is to provide background data on the topics explored in depth in the C.I.P. survey that is detailed in Redefining California. These two documents are designed to be read together, this one to provide a wide-angle view, and Redefining California for a close-up, detailed view.
This report is the result of the interest, concern and participation of many people and institutions. Beyond the generosity of The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the personal interest, involvement and encouragement by Roger Heyns and Clint Smith have been vital to our work. Likewise, the personal support of Steve Soto of the Mexican American Grocers' Association Foundation was instrumental in the final phases of this project. The faculty advisory committee to this project, Vilma Ortiz, David López and Leobardo Estrada, provided input throughout the process which we would like to acknowledge. Candelyn Candeleria and Ada Arensdorf provided editorial and manuscript support beyond the call of duty. Finally, we would like the thank Richard Chabran for his technical assistance in preparing this manuscript.
We would also like to thank the many persons with an interest in Latino policy who have called or written in the past year, encouraging us to continue in this line of research. Special thanks to Elsa de León Rodríguez of Ocampo, Coahuila and to Raúl and Ana Bracamontes of Guadalajara, for providing the tranquility to complete drafts of this manuscript.
The views and conclusions expressed in this report are the sole responsibility of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Mexican American Grocers' Association Foundation or the University of California, Los Angeles. These institutions have blessed us with their support, and we alone bear the responsibility for our errors.
Although Latinos often exhibit middle-class behavior and attitudes, most must endure poverty-level income. Compared to Anglos, Blacks or Asians in the state of California, Latinos are more likely to work and less likely to resort to welfare programs; they are most likely to be married, and to take on the responsibilities of parenthood. In addition, compared to Anglos and Blacks, Latinos in California live from four to eleven years longer, die at one-third to one-half the rate (age-adjusted) of Anglos and Blacks, have fewer low-birthweight babies, less infant mortality, fewer incidences of and deaths due to cancer, drink less, smoke less and use drugs less than do Anglos and Blacks. Latinos have also been making strides in acquiring education.
Yet, in spite of such socially responsible behavior in both the public and private spheres, Latinos are the most likely of any group to live in poverty, and still have about four years less education than other groups. While the fact that Latinos have a high poverty level and a low educational level is fairly well known to the general public, Latinos' other qualities - high labor force participation, low welfare utilization, strong family formation, good health indicators, and rapid gains in education - come as new information to many.
There is an apparent contradiction in this situation: a group with the highest poverty and lowest education rates demonstrates some of the most markedly positive behavior regarding family, work, health and the community. Under most current assumptions about the way minority groups are assumed to behave, this should not be the case.
To shed some light on the situation of Latinos in California in the 1990s, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation of Menlo Park commissioned the Chicano Studies Research Center at UCLA to undertake a statewide survey of Latinos and Anglos. The purpose was to prepare a policy-oriented portrait of Latinos to guide decision-making in he state with regard to Latino issues.
A questionnaire was developed and administered to 1,086 Latinos, and a shorter version to 600 Anglos, in what is referred to in this report as the California Identity Project (C.I.P.). Results of the survey are presented in considerable detail in a companion report (Hurtado et al., 1992).
Various other data sets - United States Census figures, vital statistics, small area studies - were collected in preparation for the survey. This information was used to provide a landscape within which the California Identity Project survey could be located. Census data were available from 1940 to 1990, and other data from the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s to 1990. These other statistics augmented the C.I.P. Survey portrait in areas such as labor participation, family formation and education. In addition, information on subjects that were not covered in the C.I.P. questionnaire, such as health, was available and is reflected here.
The original intention was to use the various data sets detailed above to provide a backdrop for the results of the C.I.P. surveys. However, the picture that this other information provided was so powerful and compelling on its own that the coauthors decided, in conjunction with the Hewlett Foundation, to present two documents simultaneously. Redefining California: Latino Engagement in a Multicultural Society (Hurtado, Hayes-Bautista, Valdez & Hernández, 1992), the companion to this monograph presents in detail the responses to the C.I.P. Survey This monograph, No Longer a Minority: Latinos and Social Policy in California, presents a composite of the other state-level data sets, including those of the United States Census, the California State Department of Health Services, California State Employment Development Department, the United States Department of Education, and other sources to supplement the more detailed materials in the C.I.P. monograph. Redefining California is a one-time snapshot derived from cross-sectional surveys. No Longer a Minority: Latinos and Social Policy in California is a longitudinal composite portrait, providing a fifty-year running start to an understanding of the C.I.P. samples.
We strongly recommend that these two reports be read together, one for a detailed, fine-grain picture, and the other for a larger, broad-focus vision. The general conclusion is the same for both documents: Latinos' behavior regarding work, family, education and health present many strengths to the society and economy of California. The state should invest in their well-being, validating these behaviors and attitudes and empowering Latinos so that they may contribute to the California economy in the twenty-first century.
Planning for Twenty-first Century Society
Sometime during the 1990s, the Anglo population will cease to be the majority of the population of the state of California. While this change from numerical majority to minority status is the result of impersonal demographic changes, the reaction to it will be quite personal and profound. The current debates over diversity, multiculturalism, political correctness and the preservation of ethnic identity will become, in many quarters, even more heated than they are now.
There are those who view continued growth of the Latino population as a clear and present danger, signaling the breakdown of the United States' national identity that has created coherence in this country. Others anticipate an endless demand for welfare, unemployment benefits, educational resources and public health services, and a disintegration of society (e.g., a rising crime rate, broken homes, increased drug use, high unemployment and no payment of new taxes) because of a large Latino community.
What will American society be like when Anglos are no longer the majority? What are the prospects that there will be a coherent, viable American society that is politically stable and economically competitive by the time today's school children achieve full adulthood? We believe that the answers to these questions can be obtained by an understanding of the dynamics of the rapidly growing Latino population and the stable Anglo group.
No Longer a Minority
A commonly held perception of California society us that it consists of an Anglo majority population and a small, ethnic minority. The minorities have often been characterized as lacking the norms of behavior assumed to be prevalent in Anglo society, such as holding a job, avoiding welfare, forming stable families and protecting corresponding lifestyles in minority populations. Yet, the concept of "minorities" is not useful in California any longer, and will not be, for two reasons.
First, a new population will be in place. In the thirty years from 1970 to 2000, California will have gone from a heavy 80% Anglo majority to a less than 50% plurality. It will no longer be correct to speak of "minority" populations when there is no majority. Second, the term "minority" usually carries implications of deprivation, deficiency and disadvantage. These associations of "minority" and social pathology are so strong that when one group does well in one area - for example, Asians in education - it becomes labeled a "model minority." While racial/ethnic minority groups have higher poverty rates and lower education levels than the Anglo group, not all their behaviors can be labeled pathological. However, after nearly thirty years of usage, the term "minority" still implies social deviance. For these reasons we urge that the term "minority" no longer be used: It will be statistically incorrect, and it has become behaviorally misleading.
The Latino population provides an illustration of these conditions. Through its growth, the Latino population will become the largest plurality within twenty years; through its collective adherence to a strong set of cultural values, it could strengthen the basic institution of work, family health and citizenship.
Underclass Model Inappropriate for Latinos
Although Latinos have the highest poverty levels and the lowest education attainment of any groups in the state, it is wrong to assume from these facts that the Latino population conforms to the urban underclass model. As we shall show throughout this study, the urban underclass model with its emphasis on low labor force participation, high welfare dependency, high family disintegration and a tangle of health pathology does not describe Latino behavior or attitudes. In fact, Latinos present a challenge to the underclass model and social policies based on its assumptions. One can summarize our findings simply: While enduring poverty-level income, Latinos in California demonstrate middle-class attitudes and behavior towards the basic institutions of society, especially family, education, work, and citizenship.
Latino Participation as Social Strength
We would like to offer a simple, but radical, paradigm shift for the development of social policy in a Latino-dominant population:
Latinos should be viewed as an invigorating force within California society rather than a problem population. Latino behavior and attitudes should be recognized as reinforcing societal commitment to family, dedication to the work ethics, renewed desire for the education of its children, and the renewal of some of the basic ideals of citizenship and participation.
This suggestion may sound simple, but it flies in the face of most policies that affect Latinos debated in this century. By starting from a position that assumes deficiencies and weaknesses, the opportunity may be lost to build upon strengths. Thus, we encourage all Californians to move away from underclass-based social policy and to speak of investing in strengths rather than attempting to remediate deficiencies.
Audience for This Report
Our audience for this monograph includes public officials, such as state legislators, county supervisors, mayors, city council members, and school board members. Others with responsibility for implementing programs such as directors of health departments, welfare departments, police departments, school principals, and various division heads within them should also find this monograph informative.
The purpose of this monograph is to stimulate new social images more appropriate for a multicultural society. We wish to stimulate debate and discussion, so that a new social image might emerge over the next few years through the participation of a diverse group of people. Put more succinctly, our objective in this monograph is to change the public discourse on Latinos by offering a different perspective on Latino attitudes and behavior. Rather than develop a detailed legislative agenda, our intention is to highlight the Latino population's capacity to enrich the state by strengthening the basic institutions and ethos of our society such as family, work, education and citizenship. Our survey data show that Latino attitudes and behavior are inclined to reinforce these ideals:
Yet all is not so rosy. Latinos' participation in society and their share of rewards remain limited. The survey also shows that Latinos experience little economic and occupational mobility because of inadequate educational opportunity and perceived discrimination in the workplace.
Clearly, California faces challenges in its dash towards the twenty-first century. In our view, the biggest impediment to entering the next century successfully and in a position of strength is the lack of an image of California society as truly multicultural. A new social image is needed, shared by Anglos and Latino alike, that will animate the state's electorate to invest in all the state's residents. As a first step towards this new vision, we urge that Latino policy discourse be shifted away from discussion of Latinos as an underclass problem to that of Latinos as a source of social strength for the twenty-first century. Our hope is that this simple but fundamental change will alter the basic policy discourse in this state regarding the shift to multicultural society. Towards this first step we offer the findings of this monograph.
"Families without money, skills, opportunities, or hope; men without jobs, women without husbands, children without fathers." (Schorr, 1998:15)
In these few lines Lisbeth Schorr summarized nearly thirty years of policy research about the urban underclass. Bursting into the national consciousness with Harrington's classic book The Other America (Harrington, 1962), the underclass and its accompanying poverty have since been discussed and debated at great length.
Over the years, a great many analysts from different political orientations have grappled with the emergence of a group of people apparently permanently mired in poverty. There are some key characteristics of the underclass that are almost always mentioned in these debates:
Because the family is so central to the proper socialization of a child in relation to the needs of a society and economy, the formation of stable households is of paramount importance for some scholars (Moynihan, 1965). Wilson sees increasing the number of "marriageable black males," who could provide families by acquiring job training and participating in public employment programs, as the solution. These men would be attractive to young Black women in creating stable families.
In the beginning of the policy debate around the effects of membership in the underclass, some policymakers proposed that these characteristics were as much the effects of poverty as the causes. Since the late 1960s, however, a case has been made by conservative policymakers who perceive poverty as a result of individual failure and individual pathology. In effect, poverty is seen as a personal moral failure (Schwartz, 1991:3; Mead, 1991:21; Murray, 1984:175; Glazer, 1988:8). From this perspective, members of the underclass lack the moral, ethical and cultural values of the American mainstream (Schwartz, 1991).
Auletta's classic work, The Underclass, has been influential in popularizing the notion of an underclass to explain persistent poverty. He has characterized the participants in job training programs designed to remove the underclass from welfare rolls as fearful, hostile, belligerent, alienated from society and indifferent to commonly accepted values. Auletta's underclass consists of the passive poor, criminals, hustlers and the psychologically traumatized. Not surprisingly, most of those Auletta followed in his book did not better their conditions even with the benefits of skill training, peer group support, close supervision and a :gradual exposure to job stress" (Auletta, 1983:xvi).
Latinos Often Viewed As Underclass
"Those discussing the underclass are usually referring to people who are concentrated in urban neighborhoods and who are predominately black or Hispanic." (United States General Accounting Office, 1990:1)
It is true that Latinos have high and persistent rate of poverty often exceeding Black rates. Latinos' income is about equal to Blacks' income. Also, the Latino educational completion levels are consistently far below those of Anglos or Blacks. These socio-demographic characteristics lead some policymakers to conclude that Latinos can be appropriately described by the urban underclass model. In fact, one report stated that: "So steeped are these people in their traditional ways and so accustomed are they to ill health and the constant presence of death, and so stupid are they with their ignorance, illiteracy and wasting diseases that lifting them out of this abyss is a real job" (California State Department of Public Health, 1938). This statement was produced over 50 years ago, in 1938 by the State Department of Public Health, and reflected sentiments that were often voiced by other policy-making agencies of the time. Such views, with only minor modification, are still utilized to create policy for Latinos.
One of the major figures in the urban underclass literature, William J. Wilson, only occasionally considered Latino data and behavior. At one point, he seems to believe that Latinos would probably replace Blacks as the new underclass: "...in the next several decades...urban Blacks could record a decrease in their rate of joblessness, crime, teenage pregnancies, female-headed homes and welfare dependency, Hispanics could show a steady increase in each" (Wilson, 1987:35, emphasis added).
Latino poverty and low educational levels have been acknowledged by researchers writing about the Black underclass (Wilson, 1987:17). Often, the assumption appears to have been made that income and education levels alone are sufficient for Latinos to be categorized as an underclass: "...underclass census tracts are in the inner city...the inclusion in the estimates of non-urban areas of great poverty, like some in Appalachia and along the United States-Mexican Border, would increase the totals" (Schorr, 1988:17).
Furthermore, the English-language media also portray Latinos as part of an underclass. Newspaper and television stories focus on gangs, drugs, crime, welfare and joblessness. Not surprisingly, a recent letter to the editor in the Los Angeles Times reinforced this image: "Immigrants may create a bottomless pit in their consumption of free health care, welfare, food stamps, public housing, social, legal and penal services, education and other subsidized services" (Los Angeles Times, Oct. 10, 1990).
Another example appeared in the National Geographic issue which recently featured an article entitled "Growing Up in East Harlem," whose focus was a story about "Spanish Harlem - the neighborhood, the barrio," which was described thus:
Fifty percent of the people of Hispanic origin...one in seven adults is out of work. More than one in three gets some form of public assistance, among the highest welfare rates in the nation. The area has some of the city's worst crime and one of the nation's highest school-dropout rates...Drugs and AIDS haunt every man, woman and child who lives here. (Van Dyk, 1990:54)
The article did not mention that the New York Latino population is not comparable to other Latino groups. The National Geographic article, like other similar articles, has influenced the images that the general public has of Latinos, and more important, it has influenced policymakers as well.
Latinos: A Challenge To The Underclass Model
There are marked differences between the California Latino population and the population described by the underclass model. The differences are significant enough to warrant extreme caution in applying the underclass model to explain Latino's poverty and lack of education. Below are some of the characteristics that make the underclass model inappropriate to Latinos.
In conclusion, when Latinos' behavior is compared to the behaviors described in the urban underclass model, the discrepancies are tremendous. For many of the key indicators used to describe the underclass (e.g., labor force participation, family formation, etc.), Latinos do not fit the expected profile. Yet, despite the fact that Latinos have many behaviors and attitudes that can be considered "healthy," Latinos have the highest level of poverty.
A Growing Discrepancy
A growing number of scholars have begun to question empirically the adequacy of the underclass model to explain persistent Latino poverty. Moore (1988) and others suggested that the underclass model might not be adequate, as they describe Latino behaviors as different from those described by underclass model scholars.
We would like to state that the underclass model is, in fact, inappropriate fro developing Latino social policy. Latinos do experience high rates of poverty and low overall educational attainment, but the explanation for these fact is related to the lack of opportunities and not to individual or community failure to assimilate the ethos of individual responsibility of personal behavior.
Beyond the Underclass
"Underclass poverty stems less from the absence of opportunity than from the inability or reluctance to take advantage of opportunity." (Mead, 1991:5-7, emphasis added)
Conservative voices attribute the existence of poverty to a reflection of personal and individual moral failure (Schwartz, 1991). This thought was adumbrated in the early 1980s by Murray, who painted a picture of liberal welfare programs fostering a lack of incentives to seek employment or undertake parental responsibility for children. Latinos as a group appear to take personal responsibility for self and family, by more than one measure, yet Latinos become poorer every year. In spite of the poverty, Latinos continue to marry, form families, seek employment, find educational opportunities for their children, worship in churches, and engage in healthy behaviors. Therefore, it is unlikely that Latino poverty is due to a community-wide breakdown in cultural values and moral behavior.
Time for a Paradigm Shift
Policy for minority ethnic/racial groups has been based on the assumption that these groups are underprivileged, deprived and deficient. As a result, policy has attempted to address the deficiencies in various ways, from busing children to school to job training. As "minorities" become the majority population of the largest state in the union, such a policy paradigm is no longer adequate.
A paradigm shift is needed, from the assumption that the term "minority" necessarily means deficient or inadequate. The California Identity Project data indicate that Latinos will be a source of economic and social strength for the state of California in the twenty-first century. Latinos' behaviors and attitudes could be seen as reinforcing the basic institution of society, such as work, family, health and community. This shift could lead to a radically different set of policy initiatives - rather than only focusing on deficiencies, efforts should be made to maintain and build on the strengths of Latinos and other ethnic/racial groups.
As recently as 1970, nearly 80% of the state's population was Anglo in origin. During this period, "minority policy" was developed to address the needs of those groups, which were not considered part of the "mainstream" population. Latino, Asian and Black population growth has been so large that these groups will, numerically, shortly form the new mainstream. This has been a rapid and radical population change.
Figure 1 shows the relative changes in California from 1970 projected to 2000. In the space of 30 years, the state's population has changed from a predominantly Anglo majority to a rapidly evolving pluralist population. By the year 2000, Anglos will account for approximately 48% of the state's population while nearly 52% will be non-Anglo. The largest non-Anglo group will be Latino, comprising about 33% of the state's population by then. Approximately 7% of the population will be Black, and around 12% will be Asian or belong to other non-Anglo groups.
These population changes will continue after the year 2000, with Latinos outnumbering Anglos during first decades of the twenty-first century. The demographic forces creating these deep-seated changes are:
These two forces have combined to contribute to low Anglo population growth during the period between 1970 and 1990. By contrast, Latino population growth has been influenced by two trends:
In summary, the combined effects of low Anglo population growth and rapid Latino growth yields the ethnic shifts seen in Figure 1.
Reaction to Latino Population Growth
These demographic changes have not gone unnoticed by the general public nor by policymakers. For some, such growth is considered harmful to society, for they perceive Latinos as the stimulus for a number of social and economic problems that affect the state. The following letter to the editor, that appeared in the Los Angeles Times, illustrates this point of view:
Rampant population growth here, caused by both legal and illegal immigration, is the root cause of many of our Southern California problems. Population growth, highest among Latinos...has caused California to slip to second-rate status financially, environmentally, and quality of life-wise. Industries are moving out. School problems are appalling. Crime and gang warfare have doubled. Homelessness increased. The number of pregnant teenagers, crack babies, abused children have tripled. (Los Angeles Times, Aug. 24, 1991)
Gridlocked freeways, air pollution, water shortages, increased crime, drug and welfare dependency are all attributed to Latino immigrants. These assertions are not surprising if the underlying assumption is that Latinos are indeed part of the underclass. Policy activist groups that take this perspective, such as Light Up the Border and The Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, conclude that the growing Latino population is a threat to the quality of life in California. Whatever the cause of these fears may be, the fact of the matter is that demographically the Latino population will continue to grow. The major policy questions should not focus on how to stop growth, but rather on how to capitalize on this growth so that a better future is possible for all Californians.
"The greatest cause of today's poverty may simply be that the attempts in recent decades to equalize opportunity have failed to persuade many Blacks and Hispanics that it is worth working." (Mead, 1991:7, emphasis added)
Within the urban underclass model persistent poverty is explained by citing the low rates of underclass males' labor force participation and high rates of females' welfare dependency. Latinos in California pose a serious challenge to this type of explanation, because in spite of their high poverty rates, Latino males have one of the highest rates of labor force participation, and Latinos overall have one of the lowest rates of welfare dependency.
High labor force participation. Latino men have been, historically, one of the most active elements in the California labor force, participating at a higher rate than any other ethnic/racial group, including Anglos, Blacks and Asians. Figure 2 shows the labor force participation of men in the state from 1940 to 1990 and illustrates how Latinos have surpassed other groups during that period (California State Employment Development Department, 1986:31-42; California State Department of Finance, 1991).
In Figure 3, the three types of labor force status for males in 1990 California are detailed; individuals can be employed, unemployed but looking for work, or not in the labor force. In comparison to the Anglo, Black and Asian Labor Force, three characteristics of Latino labor force status are salient:
High levels of employment. Latinos in California had, in 1990, the highest percentage of adult male employment, with about 75.0% employed. This is a slightly higher rate than the 71.6% for Anglos, 57.5% for Blacks and 65.9% for Asians. This trend is consistent across time, with census data from 1950 to the present showing Latinos to have higher rates of employment than any other group.
Low level of "not in labor force." Individuals who are not employed and are not looking for work are categorized by the United States Census as "not in the labor force." At times this category is referred to as labor force desertion. As shown in Figure 3, adult male Latinos in California in 1990 had the lowest percentage of men reporting that they were not in the labor force (19.7%), lower than Anglos (26.1%), Blacks (35.8%) or Asians (30.8%). Census data show that from 1940 to 1990, Latino men had, consistently, the lowest rate of labor force desertion of any ethnic/racial group.
High levels of unemployment. While California Latino men have the highest employment rate of any group, they also have a high unemployment rate, exceeded only by Blacks. Figure 3 shows that Latinos have a higher unemployment rate (5.2%) than Anglos (2.3%) or Asians (3.2%), and a rate exceeded only slightly by Blacks (6.7%).
The apparent Contradiction between having a high employment rate and simultaneously a high unemployment rate is explained by the low rate of labor force desertion. Rather than leave the labor force when employment conditions are less than optimal, Latinos in California continue either to work or to seek work, thereby increasing both the employment and unemployment rates.
Overall, Latino labor force participation shows a group deeply committed to work. If all men in California in 1990 had participated in the labor force at the same rate as Latinos, a total of 631,300 additional workers would have been involved in the state's work force.
Poverty Level Income
Latinos earn few rewards for their active involvement in the labor force. Many Latinos live in poverty and general family income is quite low despite their labor force participation and low rate of labor force desertion.
Low family income. Latinos in California make almost as little as Blacks. Latinos' average family income for 1990 is $26,900, and Blacks' family income is $26,300. The average family income for Asians during that year is $37,700, and Anglo families earn the most, receiving $43,400 (California State Department of Finance, 1991).
High levels of poverty. In 1990, Latinos in California had the highest percentage of families living in poverty of any ethnic/racial group. Approximately 22.1% of Latino families live in poverty, just slightly more than 21.8% of Black families, and higher than the 18.3% of Asian families. In comparison, few Anglo families live in poverty: 7.1% (California State Department of Finance, 1991).
The poverty level experienced by Latino families is not the result of failing to seize the opportunity to work. Rather, Latinos show that in today's economy it is possible to work very hard and still live in poverty. Part of the reason for Latinos' poverty levels is that they work in low-paying, dead-end jobs that afford little opportunity for occupational mobility and advancement. Hurtado et al. (1992) provide a detailed account of Latinos' labor force participation and its relation to their lack of occupational mobility. Latinos' willingness to work is not itself sufficient to ensure their economic success.
Low Welfare Dependency
"How do we handle the problem inherent in absorbing millions of poor, often uneducated and unskilled foreigners into our society? ...The declining economy has sent the welfare rolls soaring with more than 2 million Californians receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children." (Los Angeles Times, March 23, 1991)
The urban underclass has been described as highly dependent on welfare. Latinos, especially immigrants, are often also described as contributors to the welfare rolls and adding to the burden of public support; however, in actuality, Latinos have one of the lowest rates of welfare utilization compared to other ethnic/racial groups, and when on welfare, receive the least amount of assistance.
Low unearned income. Unearned income is cash income derived from income-transfer programs, such as social security, welfare programs, unemployment benefits and other social programs. The major source of unearned income for young adult women is welfare, whereas for young men it is unemployment benefits. Figure 4 shows the average per capita amounts of unearned income received in one year by young adults age 20 to 24 in California for 1985. Latinos received the lowest amount of unearned income ($424). Anglos received more, averaging $504. Asians received a higher amount at $608, and Blacks the highest, averaging $1,149 (Hayes-Bautista et al., 1988).
Low welfare participation. As mentioned earlier, Latinos have the highest rate of poverty in the state. In spite of this, Latinos are the least likely to utilize welfare programs. For example, in a study of over 185,000 cases of single parents receiving aid for dependent children (AFDC) in Los Angeles County in 1986, Latinos were underrepresented (UCLA School of Social Welfare, 1987). More specifically, when statistically controlling for income, Latinos were about half as likely as Anglos or Asians to receive AFDS payments, and about one fifth as likely as Blacks.
Immigrants participate the least in welfare programs. Previously undocumented Latino immigrants now are in the process of obtaining legal residencies as a result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act amnesty provisions. Contrary to popular belief, these immigrants do not appear to overutilize welfare and other governmental programs, but instead report extremely low utilization. In a study of nearly 5,000 amnesty applicants in San Diego County, only 2.8% reported receiving AFDC payments in the past five years, 2.5% had received "General Assistance" and 6.6% had received food stamps (Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System, 1989). These results are corroborated when the rates of unearned income presented in Figure 4 are disaggregated for Latino immigrants and the United States-born Latinos. Latino immigrants averaged $344, much less than Anglos ($504) and nearly half the amount received by United States-born Latinos ($605) (Hayes-Bautista et al, 1988).
The California Identity Project data confirm Latinos' strong dedication to the work ethic (Hurtado et al, 1992) and an aversion to the use of government programs. Both in terms of Latinos' attitudes as well as their participation in the labor force, the picture is consistent with fifty years of census data - Latinos work, work hard, and would rather "make it" through their own efforts than through reliance on others (Hurtado et al., 1992).
Summary
"Socioeconomic mobility has been America's stock in trade. Immigrants arrive penniless and work their way up...To sustain this mobility, the United States has depended on the willingness of the poor to make investment of time, energy, psychic commitment and money..." (Murray, 1984:186-187)
In direct opposition to the personal profile developed for the underclass model, the Latino population in California possess the personal characteristics that could potentially lead to socioeconomic mobility. Among these characteristics are the endorsement of the work ethics, coupled with a disdain for reliance on welfare programs. However, these qualities have not resulted in economic rewards nor have they been recognized as assets. Occupational mobility is minimal for most Latinos, and there is increasing poverty among this population.
Overall, Latinos have values and personal characteristics that could contribute to California's productivity. However, social policy has not effectively harnessed or rewarded this population's desire to work. As detailed in Hurtado et al. (1992), many Latinos at work are not covered by health insurance or retirement plans, have few paid vacation days and most receive low pay. Third-generation Latinos are as likely as immigrants to be blue-collar workers, a fact which illustrates the lack of occupational mobility. The efforts of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to discourage immigration by making the act of working a criminal offense is obviously another disincentive.
The Latino population will inevitably continue to grow, and will continue to exhibit strong labor force participation. It would be in the state's best economic interest for labor policy to be designed in such a way as to maximize the economic contributions of this population.
"These families are so devoid of structure, of organization, they can disorganize you! When you leave after a visit, you have a headache." (Schorr, 1988:149)
A key feature of the urban underclass model is the virtual lack of family structure and functioning: Among the characteristic feature of the model are a high rate of children born to unwed mothers, or into single-parent households. Predictably there is an absence of male figures in the household, and a high degree of household instability. Latino families present quite a contrast to this image.
High degree of family formation. Latinos are more likely to form family units than any other ethnic/racial group in California when family is defined as consisting of the conventional couple with children. Figure 5 presents the percent of the households in each ethnic group that is composed of couples with children, from California census data for 1940 to 1980 (California State Employment Development Department, 1986). Latinos have the highest rate of family formation, when compared to Anglos, Blacks or Asians. For example, in 1980, 47.1% of all Latino households consisted of nuclear family arrangements. In contrast, Anglos were only half as likely to be composed of nuclear families (24.6%), and Blacks and Asians had rates lower than Latinos (21.8% and 38.4% respectively).
The rate of family formation for all families has been declining since the 1950s, but for Latinos it has changed at a lower rate than other ethnic/racial groups. These trends are affected by both age structure and culture. Latinos are much younger than other ethnic/racial groups (Hayes-Bautista et al., 1988), and therefore, likely to be married and raising children. Many of these are immigrants from Mexico and Latin America who tend to be young adults. Latino attitudes towards family are detailed in Hurtado et al. (1992). These factors contribute to a higher rate of family formation. In spite of all the difficulties posed by raising children in the urban California of the 1990s, Latinos are quite committed to fulfilling their parental roles and assuming familial obligations.
Although Latinos are twice as likely as Anglos to undertake the responsibilities of parenthood, there is not a significant difference in the percentage of Latino and Anglo children living in a two parent household in California. Figure 6 shows that 80.9% of Anglo children live in two-parent households, whereas 78.8% of all Latino children live in this type of household (California State Employment Development Department, 1986). Of Asian children, 82.5% are in this type of situation, just slightly higher than Anglos. For Black children, the rate is 47.5%, which is significantly lower.
Latino family structure exhibits a profile in nearly direct opposition to that predicted by the urban underclass family structure. Latinos demonstrate one of the strongest commitments to family in comparison to other ethnic/racial groups.
Strengthening the Family In California
In times of increasing economic and social instability, raising a family is a serious, difficult commitment. It is not surprising, therefore to see the overall decline of the traditional two-parent family in the last decades of the twentieth century. Two trends have been noticeable for the past twenty years:
Primary single person households. One trend is the high number of households comprised of a single person living alone. In California in 1980, Anglos are the most likely to live in this type of household (33.3%), followed by Blacks (32.6%), then Asians (24.6%), with Latinos being the least likely (16.2%) (California State Employment Development Department, 1986).
Childless couples. Another trend is the rise of childless couples. In 1980, 31.4% of Anglo couples were without children. This is a much higher rate of childless families than among Asians (22.5%), Black (16.7%) or Latino (18.0%) populations (California State Employment Development Department, 1986). When the primary single and childless couples are added together 64.9% of Anglo households consist of single individuals or couples without children. By contrast, only 34.2% of Latinos about half the Anglo rate, were in this situation.
If Latino families can resist the societal pressures to disintegrate, a growing Latino population may well contribute to an increasing commitment to the notion of family in the state. Given the central role the family plays in the socialization of the individual (Murray, 1984; Schorr, 1988; Wilson, 1987), this should be very heartening news.
The California Identity Project explored attitudes toward family, and uncovered an underlying valued structure that places a high value on creating family networks and living within them. In fact, the most important identity a Latino has is the family identity (Hurtado et al., 1992). Given the strength of the Latino Family, and the strong role that it plays in Latino daily life, family structure should be considered a key point in future policy debates.
"Minority population have been found to be in poorer health than other population groups. Elevated morbidity and mortality rates among minorities have been well documented." (National Institute for Health, 1991)
The underclass model draws attention to the major health hazards inherent to a life of poverty. Among these are often high infant mortality and the birth epidemic in numbers of "drug babies". Anecdotal information suggests that a man in Bangladesh has a longer life expectancy than a young man in some inner-city neighborhoods (Time, September 9, 1991).
An examination of health data from the local, state and national level shows that Latinos do not fit within the urban underclass model predictions for poor health and health behaviors. Contrary to general expectations, Latinos consistently exhibit good health indicators and some health habits.
Long Lives
Latinos have a life expectancy of 4.3 years longer than do Anglos. An Anglo baby born in Los Angeles County in 1986 can expect to live 75.1 years (see Figure 7), whereas a Latino baby can expect to live 79.4 years, 4.3 years longer. A Black baby has a life expectancy of 68.7 years, 10.7 years less than the Latino baby. An Asian baby has 81.5 years of life expectancy, 2.1 years more than a Latino.
Latinos have a death rate one-third lower than Anglos. Figure 8 details the age-adjusted death rates for Los Angeles County. The Anglo rate is 7.9 per 1,000, which may be seen as the baseline figure. The Latino death rate is over one-third lower - 5.1. This rate is less than half the Black death rate of 11.1, and is exceeded slightly by the Asian death rate of 4.8.
The age adjustment takes into account the fact that Anglos are much older than Latinos, thus will have a higher crude death rate because death is associated with older age. To give an idea of what the crude death rates can be, the unadjusted rate for death due to circulatory system problems (heart attacks, etc.) for Anglos is 558.4 (per 100,000), five times higher than Latino crude death rate of 96.0. The proportions are similar for almost all causes of death. This difference in death rates is not unique to Los Angeles County. At the state level, Latinos consistently have had a lower crude death rate in all age groups (California State Department of Health Services, 1984).
Healthy Births
"Minority children continued to have a far higher death rate than their White counterparts for the interval 1950 through 1986." (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 1990:36)
The urban underclass model predicts high rates of low-birthweight babies and infant mortality. Despite the Latino population's high rates of poverty and their low rates of education, Latino babies have low rates of low birthweight and mortality.
Latinos have the lowest rate of low-birthweight babies. Latinas giving birth in Los Angeles County in 1986 had the lowest rate of low-birthweight babies of any group - only 5.3% weighed 2,500 grams or less (see Figure 9). Anglos had a slightly higher rate of low-birthweight babies, 5.5%. Asians had the next highest, at 6.1%, and Blacks the highest at 13.2%.
These trends are not unique to Los Angeles. At the state level, among all groups, Latinos give birth to the fewest low-birthweight babies per 1,000 live births (Williams et al, 1986). At the national level, 5.0% of Latino babies were low birthweight, just slightly higher than the national Anglo rate of 4.8%, and less than half the Black rate of 11.6% (Becerra et al., 1991).
Latinos have comparatively low infant mortality. Los Angeles County infant mortality rates for the period 1974 to 1986 (see Figure 10) illustrate that Latinos have had the lowest mortality of the three groups. This pattern is similar at the state level (William et al., 1986). At the national level, Mexican-origin Latinos, and Anglos have identical infant mortality rates of 8.3 per 1,000 live births, approximately half the Black rate of 17.2 (Becerra et al., 1991).
The epidemiological paradox. Although Latinos have low rates of low-birthweight babies and infant mortality, they have the worst risk factors of any group in terms of income, education and access to health care. As noted in chapter 3 above, Latinos in California in 1990 had the highest rate of poverty (22.1%) compared to Anglos (7.1%) or Blacks (21.8%). Latinos also have the least amount of education (9.1 years) compared to Anglos (13.4 years) or Blacks (12.4 years), (see chapter 6). In addition, Latinos are the least likely to receive health care in the first trimester of pregnancy (Williams et al., 1986).
However, despite these risk factors, Latinos have birth outcomes that rank among the best. This situation of good birth outcomes in spite of high risk factors has been called an epidemiological paradox. Clearly, a maternal and infant health program based on the underclass model would not be appropriate for Latinos.
Healthy Behaviors
The explanation of the paradox may lie in Latino behaviors. Below are a few of the Latino behaviors that may account for the generally good health outcomes briefly described.
Moderate drinking habits. Pregnant women who drink alcohol are more likely to have low-birthweight babies. Latinas consistently show the lowest levels of drinking compared to Anglos or Black women. When they do drink, they drink less and not as frequently as non-Latinas (Gilbert and Cervantes, 1986; Caetano, 1984). However, the more acculturated United States-born Latinas drink more, and more frequently, than immigrant Latinas.
Moderate smoking habits. Overall, Latina women smoke less than Anglo or Black women. Furthermore, fewer Latinas report ever having smoked, and when they smoke, they smoke less frequently in smaller quantities than Anglo or Black women (California State Department of Health Services, 1990). Similar to respective drinking behavior, the United States-born Latinas will smoke more frequently, and in greater volume, than immigrant Latina women (Marín et al., 1989).
Moderate drug use. Booth, Castro and Anglio (1990) show, through a meta-analysis of studies on drug use, that Latinos use drugs less than Anglos or Blacks. Furthermore, in Los Angeles County, preliminary analysis of data from an ongoing study of drug babies shows that Latinas have fewer babies born addicted to drugs than Anglos or Blacks (Lewis et al., 1991).
A recent Gallup poll in California showed, to the surprise of many, that a statewide sample of Latinos smoked less, drank less, and in general protected their health more than Anglos or Blacks (Gallup, 1991). Studies have still to be conducted to confirm definitely the picture that is beginning to emerge from a number of small area studies that Latinos do not exhibit the health-threatening behaviors so often associated with the urban underclass.
Cancer as an indicator. This picture is reinforced by a recent fifteen-year study by the Norris Cancer Center at the University of Southern California. Latinos died significantly less frequently from cancer between 1972 and 1987 than did Anglos or Blacks. If cancer is viewed partly as a style-of-life disease, Latinos' lifestyle may contain some health-promoting elements that explain these results.
Communicable disease: a danger area. Latinos have good life expectancy, low mortality, good birth outcomes and restricted intake of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs among women. One of the areas of Latino vulnerability, however, is in communicable diseases. Latinos have high rates of tuberculosis, measles, even polio. These communicable diseases are easily and inexpensively controlled, treated and cured. Tuberculosis is one example: prevention measures are known, and treatment is relatively uncomplicated. The Latino tuberculosis rate is about five times that of the Anglo rate (see Figure 11). Indeed, Latinos' other very strong health behaviors suggest that illness due to communicable disease must be considered a result of inadequate health policy rather than the population's failure to be responsible for its health.
The United States does not compare well with the rest of the industrialized world in the major health indicators such as life expectancy, mortality, low-birthweight babies and infant mortality. Again, contrary to the predictions of made by the urban underclass model, Latinos in California rank with the population of the upper range of industrialized countries in terms of these health indicators.
Overall, the Latino population presents a solid health profile and some health-enhancing behaviors and attitudes. If these behaviors can be preserved, the growing Latino population will not seriously compromise the state's overall health indicators.
"A report card of failure: a generation of Hispanic falls behind. Of all American immigrant groups, Hispanics have what is probably the least successful record in school." (Newsweek headline, August 19, 1991)
Because members of the urban underclass appear to lack interest in school, Latinos' lack of educational attainment is used as justification for including them as part of the underclass. In fact, Latinos overall do not achieve high levels of education. In 1990, Latino adults in California age 25 and older completed only 9.1 years compared to 12.4 for Blacks, 12.6 for Asians, and 13.4 for Anglos (California State Department of Finance, 1991). Yet this simple comparison is misleading.
The Newsweek headline quoted above gives the impression that Latinos have failed to perform in school and are doing worse each year. Longitudinal data, however, suggest otherwise. Also, such generalization do not take into account differences in performance between the Latino immigrant and the United State-born Latinos.
Educational Gain, 1940-1990
Census data from 1940 to 1980, from the California State Employment Development Department and the Current Population Survey data for 1990 provides one picture of overall Latino educational attainment. Figure 12 depicts the average of completed years of education for adults for the four ethnic groups in California. Anglo educational levels rose from just 9.9 years in 1940 to 13.4 in 1990. The educational attainment of Latinos rose also, from 5.6 years in 1940 to 9.1 in 1990.
It is important to note that educational levels rose for both groups, at about the same rate. In 1940 Anglos had 4.3 more years of education than Latinos. This gap persisted into 1990, when Anglos still had 4.3 more years of education than Latinos. The difference in educational attainment that is so often cited in 1990 was also present in 1940.
Blacks and Asians have gained more education than Latinos, but still trail behind Anglos. In 1940, Blacks and Asians had educational levels halfway between those of Latinos and Anglos. By 1990, they had educational levels close to the Anglo level. In the aggregate, in appears that Blacks and Asians have benefited most from educational opportunity, and Latinos the least, but in fact, all have benefited.
This overall view, however is slightly misleading. Anglo and Black educational attainment reflects educational policy and activities in California and the rest of the country. Latino educational levels are affected by immigration as well as domestic educational efforts. Immigrants who arrive as adults reflect the educational opportunity in Mexico and other countries of origin, while the United States-born Latinos reflect more accurately the effects of domestic programs. Aggregate data tend to mask the performance of the United States-born, and provide a picture that may be unduly weighed to the immigrant population.
Differences Among Latinos
Not all Latino groups achieve the same amount of education. When the California Identity Project examined the educational levels of first-generation immigrants compared to the third-generation United States-born Latinos (the grandchildren of immigrants), the picture of Latinos' educational attainment became much clearer.
Generational increase in years of education. In this sample, first-generation Latino immigrants had significantly fewer years of school than third-generation Latinos. Latino immigrants completed 8.8 years compared to 11.9 for third-generation Latinos (Hurtado et al., 1992). To better compare the California Identity Project sample to census data, the years of education for each group in the C.I.P. sample were converted into ratios comparing Latinos and Anglos.
In the California Identity Project sample Anglos completed an average of 13 years of education. Using this figure as the baseline mark, Latino immigrants in this sample had achieved only 65% of the Anglo level of education. This third generation of Latinos, however, had closed the gap considerably, having acquired 88% of the educational level of the Anglo group (see Figure 13).
Generational increase in high school graduation. Adult Latino immigrants rarely graduate from high school: only 29% did so in the C.I.P. sample (see Figure 14). By the third generation, however, 70% had graduated, more than double the rate of the first generation. For purposes of comparison, 92% of Anglos in the sample had graduated from high school. Third-generation Latinos have an educational profile very similar to that of Blacks and Asians, in terms of years of school completed and high school graduation rates. Therefore, not all Latinos are failing to achieve educationally.
Immigrant and Education
The overall rates of Latino educational attainment are due to the tremendous increase in the adult immigrant population. In 1970, immigrants were 24% of all Latinos (California State Employment Development Department, 1986). In 1990, immigrants were the majority of the Latino population in California (Hurtado et al., 1992). Immigrants have an average 25% fewer years of education than the native born and consequently, the influx of immigrants into the Latino population lowers the overall educational level.
Latino immigrants come to the United States with the educational attainment normative to their country of origin: Their relatively low levels of education reflect conditions in their countries of origin, and not necessarily a lack of interest in education in the United States. Also, the children of these immigrants will definitely achieve more education than their parents.
The educational attainment of Latinos would be significantly different if there had not been the recent immigration from Latin American countries. For example, if immigrants had continued to represent only 24% of all Latinos in California, projecting from the California Identity Project sample, attainment would have been 11.1 years or 83% of Anglo educational attainment.
Latino immigrants have large families (see chapter 3) and their children are entering the school system. The California Identity Project results indicate that Latino parents have very positive attitudes toward education and are very interested in their children's schooling.
Recent Dropout Trends
Recently released data on high school dropout trends show that fewer students dropped out of the class of 1990 than they did in 1986. This was true of all ethnic groups, including the Latinos (see Figure 15). For Anglos, the dropout rate in 1986 was 20.2%, and in 1990 it had fallen to 14.4%. Latinos saw a similar decrease in the dropout rate, from 35.1% to 29.2%. (Catterall, 1988; California State Department of Education, 1991).
Even these dropout data are best seen in historical perspective. As recently as World War II, the average Anglo did not graduate from high school (California State Employment Development Department, 1986). It was not until 1950 that 50.2% of Anglos managed to become high school graduates. In that same year, only 18.6% of Latinos had reached that level. Since 1940, Anglo and Latino high school graduation rates have been climbing at about the same rate. Latinos had a much lower graduation rate than Anglos did, and today have reached the same rate of graduation that Anglos had in 1950.
It has yet to be determined what exactly caused these changes. However, the trend is encouraging overall and reinforces the notion that Latinos' dropout rate can indeed be reduced.
The Glass Ceiling
Funding for public education decreased dramatically in California in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, since the mid-1980s, funding has slowly increased. Perhaps this additional funding has resulted in increased academic performance for all groups - Anglos, Latinos, Blacks and Asians.
Even so, despite these recent gains in curtailing the high school dropout rate, the California Identity Project shows that although third-generation Latinos increase their educational attainment levels tremendously, they hit an "educational glass ceiling" beyond high school (Hurtado et al, 1992). Third-generation Latinos' educational high school attainment is close to the educational level of Anglos - there is a rapid drop-off after high school. While 67% of Anglos attended college, only 29% of third-generation Latinos did so. And, while 36% of Anglos graduated from college, only 9% of third-generation Latinos did so. In short, at the point of high school graduation, third-generation Latinos are catching up to Anglo performance, but beyond that point, Latino quickly fall behind.
Summary
The educational picture for Latinos is both hopeful and bleak. Latinos are not falling behind other groups, nor refusing to take advantage of educational opportunities. Instead, Latinos are making tremendous strides in educational attainment. Yet, these gains should not be taken to mean that Latino educational policy can be neglected. Like the other areas - family, work, health - Latino behavior should be seen as a positive social force, and worthy of significant investment. If Latino educational attitudes and desires are sufficiently reinforced, their educational levels will increase.
"When our nation was launched in the late 18th century, we were primarily from England, speaking English. The waves of immigrants that came to our shores in the late 19th century were assimilated into our culture by the third generation, and the English language was the big unifier. When you could speak English fluently, you were American. And being American meant accepting the culture, social graces and form of government that were primarily Anglo-Saxon.
We have been fighting for the past half century to bring people together. Multiculturalism represents a major step backwards and is, on balance, far more destructive than constructive." (The Wall Street Journal, August 19, 1991)
Latinos appear to have behaviors and values very similar to those held by middle class Anglos in the areas of family life, work ethic, health outcomes and education. In spite of these similarities, however, these Latino values were not acquired by the individual assimilating into the Anglo mainstream, and losing his linguistic and cultural distinctiveness. Latinos pose a striking challenge to the assimilation framework, because the values and behaviors regarding family, work, education and health are part and parcel of a Latino identity. Contradicting the current rhetoric about the need for complete linguistic and cultural assimilation, Latinos feel that they are Latino and part of this country as well. They, as a group, do not see a contradiction between being Latino and being American as they define it, nor do they see a need to choose between one ethnic identification or the other. For most Latinos, the situation is one of "both-and" rather than a mutually exclusive"either-or" choice of ethnic identity and citizenship.
The Individual Level: Latino Identity
Some of the major findings on social identity from the California Identity Project are summarized in this section. It is clear that Latinos are not assimilating the way European immigrants have traditionally assimilated. Although not all European immigrant groups gave up their national identities completely to assume an American identity (Novak, 1972; Steinberg, 1989), the predominant view is that they quickly became American and abandoned their language, culture and history. It is clear that today's Latino population is not following the path the assimilation framework would predict, that each subsequent Latino generation would shed identification with their ethnic and linguistic roots. If Latinos were following the European immigrant assimilation trajectory, by the third generation they should be indistinguishable from Anglos. As demonstrated in the results of the California Identity Project this is not the case. Even the third generation respondents had a strong identification with being Latino. However, identifying as Latino did not exclude identifying as American at the same time (Hurtado et al., 1992).
Most Latinos endorse bilingualism and biculturalism. Latino immigrants have at least rudimentary skills in English. Third-generation Latinos are overwhelmingly bilingual, that is, while third-generation respondents master English, they also retain Spanish. Furthermore, parents are insistent that their children retain Spanish language use while mastering English. They believe that those who speak two languages will be more successful in the future.
Similarly, third-generation Latinos are as likely to be engaged in Latino culture (e.g. listen to mariachi or salsa music, watch a novela, etc.) as they are to be engaged in "mainstream" culture (listen to rock and roll oldies, watch a football game). On a daily basis, Latinos do not see that their cultural preference is a situation of "either/or" in which they must make a choice between different cultures, but instead see their lives as relatively coherent in their use of the many cultural stocks available to them in a multicultural society.
Components of Latino Social Identity
A major focus of the California Identity Project was social identity, that is, a respondent's identification (or lack of identification) with different social groups such as race, class, gender, ethnic, religious, etc. The results indicate that there are stable components in the social identification of Latinos that are maintained from generation to generation with virtually no change. There are also components, however, that change very rapidly and profoundly from one generation to the next.
Stable components of Latino social identity. All Three generations in the California Identity Project identified four components that were central to defining who they are:
Family. About 95% of the California Identity Project's respondents selected family label as one of their most important social identities. This is not surprising, given the high level of commitment Latinos have to family generally (see chapter 4, and Hurtado et al., 1992).
Ethnicity. Whether Latinos call themselves Hispanic, Mexican, Latino or other terms, ethnicity is also one of the most important social identifications. About 89% of the respondents chose an ethnic term as one of their most salient social identities.
Religious affiliation.While religion is overall very important for Latinos, 85% specified a Catholic social identity.
Spanish-speaking identity. About 82% of our respondents identified themselves as Spanish speakers, including many of those who are English dominant.
These four elements - family, ethnicity, religion and language - are very stable components of Latino identity, and essentially do not vary over three generations. We consider these items to be the key, stable features of Latino identity which do not change over time.
Loss of components of Latino social identity. The first-generation immigrants strongly identify with the social identity of foreigner in the country, reflecting accurately their status as immigrants. By the third generation, however, that identification no longer pertains. Third-generation respondents did not see themselves as foreigners, even though they are overwhelmingly bilingual and bicultural.
Additional components of Latino social identity. Very few first-generation Latino immigrants see themselves as "Americans," "United States citizens" or "United States natives." By the second and third generations, however, our respondents saw themselves as "Americans." Simultaneously, however, the second- and third-generation respondents saw themselves as "Mexican-American," "American of Mexican descent," and other Latino-specific ethnic terms.
Over time, Latinos no longer perceive themselves as foreigners, and begin to feel quite "American." Yet, for these respondents, there is no contradiction between being "American" and being Latino, Catholic and Spanish-speaking. Any request that they should become less Latino in order to become more American is a request for a false dichotomy.
The previous chapters in this monograph document Latinos' high rates of labor force participation and family formation, and their low rates of labor force desertion and welfare utilization, in spite of having the greatest degree of poverty and least amount of education of any ethnic/racial group in the state. Perhaps Latinos' social identity and commitment to their culture, with its strong emphasis on family, work, religion and language, may mitigate the otherwise disabling effects of low income and education associated with the underclass.
The Development of Latino Society
Latinos need to be understood on their own social context in order to appreciate how they can be a potential source of strength for California. Latinos' contribution and strengths cannot be understood through the underclass framework so often used currently to explain the poor, nor through the melting-pot framework used to understand immigrant groups of the nineteenth century. Latinos form families, encourage their children to succeed educationally and participate in the labor force. These behaviors and values are part of Latino identity, and are not the result of assimilation to Anglo norms and values. In our analysis, a Latino desire to maintain a Latino identity is not in itself an obstacle to social engagement and participation in mainstream United States society. In many instances, Latino participation is an extension of their commitment to their communities and desire to maintain some cultural distinctiveness. Latinos are eager to be identified as Americans, participating in and upholding American values and institutions. Such a desire need not come at the expense of being Latino, but is the result of maintaining a similar value system to that of the new country.
Latinos are not simply a number of disconnected individuals, but are a society nearly 8 million strong in California (over 22 million in the United States) who are creating a Latino community and society, built upon their own values, cultures and history. Latinos talk with one another, trade with one another, worship with one another, using modern means of communication (television, radio and newspapers) and transportation. The numerous Latino professional groups of physicians, bankers, grocers, attorneys, nurses, educators, entertainers, engineers, priests, politicians and others are the most visible tip of a larger society that is being formed in urban California. This community is linked via modern communication and transportation to the nearly 500 million residents of Latin America.
Yet Latinos are not a separatist group, a potential Quebec-style breakaway movement. Second- and third-generation Latinos are very quick to assert their sense of belonging to the United States, and will claim faint political allegiance to Mexico or any other country. Immigrants often conserve a sense of national identity (Mexican versus Salvadoran versus Nicaraguan, etc.), yet they have voted with their feet, choosing a home in the United States, and see their future, and their child's future, in this country. Figure 16 shows responses to the question, "A person has a better chance of getting ahead in the U.S. than Mexico or any other Latin American country." Fully 90.7% of all respondents agreed with this question, of which 50.8% agreed strongly. Only 7.5% disagreed. Likewise, Figure 17 gives responses to the question "I think a child growing up in the U.S. has a better life than a child growing up in Mexico or any other country in Latin America." Overall 85.1% of the respondents agreed, 50.3% of these agreed strongly; only 13% disagreed.
Taken in isolation, these responses might have been interpreted as a repudiation of things Latino. However, in the context of the overall emergent portrait of Latino attitudes and behavior, they are a demonstration of a renewal of the American dream and not a repudiation of Latino identity. Clearly, Latinos are Latinos: just as clearly, Latinos are also American.
Diversity Does Not Mean Divisiveness
Given their growth, by sheer mass of numbers Latinos are redefining the American dream in a way, and to a degree unknown to European immigrants of the nineteenth century. When outcome behaviors are examined, it does appear that Latino attitudes, culture and identity might represent a strengthening of basic societal institutions of family, community, work, education and health. Rather than being seen as a threat to the integrity of California society, the increased diversity wrought by tremendous Latino population growth should be seen as an asset.
Summary
Not only do Latinos present a challenge to the notion of an underclass, they present a challenge to the assimilation model: While demonstrating the behaviors and attitudes of the Anglo middle class to family, work, health and education, they have an intensely Latino sense of identity. Yet they see themselves as part of American society.
As California creates a multicultural society, much can be learned from the situation of Latinos. A group need not give up its sense of identity in order to contribute positively to the society and economy; indeed, the Latino sense of group identity provides part of the impetus for positive social behavior.
"The solution [to poverty] is within the reach of most people. Marriage and family prevent poverty. Schooling prevents poverty. Working at almost any job prevents poverty." (Weidenbaum, 1990)
One current school of thought about poverty and its solution holds that individual behavior is alone sufficient to guard against poverty (Weidenbaum, 1990; Schwartz 1991; Mead, 1991; Murray 1984). As demonstrated in earlier chapters, Latinos have very healthy and productive behaviors. Yet such commendable behavior does not result in economic advancement. In fact, Latinos are becoming poorer rather than wealthier. It is now time for society to reciprocate, and facilitate Latino contributions by building upon the social strengths that they bring to this state.
Maximizing Latino Engagement
The policy focus needs to shift away from a "minority" focus on deprivation, underprivileged and disadvantage, to the large image of an emergent Latino society maximizing its contribution to the state. Rather than only underscoring the need for remedial measures, it would be advisable to consider Latinos as a productive population that adds to the state of California.
A paradigm shift is needed, to cease seeing Latinos as a problem, and to begin seeing Latinos as an investment opportunity. It makes sense to begin to think of investing in the validation and empowerment of Latino dreams and vision that fuel such exemplary behavior. To the end, below are suggested areas for further discussion and development.
Work
The high rate of Latino labor force participation makes it possible to move "minority policy" away from a welfare framework to a framework that emphasizes improvements in the workplace.
Family
In general, families with children should receive encouragement and support and family functioning could be facilitated.
Health
Overall, the Latino population seems to be responsive to preventive medicine and public health initiatives. The population's aggregate health indicators are good, even with minimal access to care. However, the goal should be to increase their levels of wellness and preserve good health behaviors by increasing accessibility to health care.
Education
During the 1950s, there was a general agreement among the voters that it was necessary to build grammar schools, high schools, and college campuses. California ranked near the top of the nation in policy initiatives for education. Recently, there has been a revived effort, but not at the levels experienced in the 1950s. Latino educational attainment is highly responsive to social policy, and therefore improvements that have a positive effect on the whole will also have the effort of increasing the educational attainment of Latinos. Simultaneously, there has to be some education policy specifically designed for Latinos.
Citizenship
Over two hundred years ago, the rallying cry for American discontent with government was "taxation without representation is tyranny." Immigrant Latinos are in a similar situation today. Because so few are citizens, they have no voice in the setting of taxes or budgets, yet they often bear the burden of such decisions.
Social Image and Public Policy
The suggestion fro further policy discussions may seem overly ambitious and perhaps unrealistic in these days of extremely tight state and local budgets. However, the greatest impediment to investing wisely in the growing Latino population may not be fiscal, but rather the lack of a social image that binds together the interest of Anglos and Latinos. Latinos have not been accurately depicted in the English language media. If the only information available to the general public comes from the media, it is not surprising that policymakers feel that the underclass model might be appropriate for understanding the socioeconomic position of Latinos.
Despite all the negative exposure, however, not all Anglos believe that Latinos represent a threat to the state (Hurtado et al., 1992). As the California Identity Project data show, approximately half of the 600 Anglo respondents approved of Latinos dedication to family, work and adherence to their culture. Over half the sample wanted their children to learn Spanish and would pay additional taxes to support bilingual education.
In fact, California Anglos and Latinos are not as polarized as the media would lead one to believe. Latinos see the economic advantage to be gained in the United States, and are willing to respect and engage in mainstream culture. And around half the Anglo sample supports Latino engagement in society. However, harmony is not as newsworthy as conflict. Instead, the policy activist groups who hold negative views of Latinos have been more vocal and visible through the media, resulting in their views gaining an inordinate amount of influence.
It is now time for Anglos who support multiculturalism to join the public debate. A fruitful coalition could result from these Anglos joining Latino advocacy group to forge a new social image of a multicultural California as a desirable and valuable state of affairs. If multiculturalism can be defined in terms of strength rather than remediation, the perhaps it would not appear as threatening.
Next Steps
Despite all these changes, Latinos are still analyzed and perceived as part of the underclass, requiring impossibly large amounts of resources to become functional in society. This assumption has to change over the next few years, so that Latino strengths and contributions can provide the vigor to take California successfully into the twenty-first century.
We hope that this monograph, and its overall message, will serve as a stimulus for discussion by policymakers, in government and in the private sector.
Auletta, K., 1983. The Underclass. New York: Vintage Books.
Becerra, J.E., Hogue, C.S., Atrash, H.K., and Pérez, N. 1991. "Infant Mortality Among Hispanics: A Portrait of Heterogeneity." The Journal of the American Medical Association 265 (2): 217-221.
Booth, M.W., Castro, F.G., and Angliu, M.D. 1990. "What Do We Know About Hispanic Substance Abuse? A Review of the Literature." In Drugs in Hispanic Communities, edited by R. Glick & J. Moore. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Brown, E.R., Valdez, R.B., Morgenstern, H., Cumberland, W., Chang, C., and Mann, J. 1991. "Health Insurance Coverage of Californians in 1989." Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, School of Public Health.
Caetano, R. 1984 "Ethnicity and Drinking in Northern California: A Comparison Among Whites, Blacks & Hispanics." Alcohol and Alcoholism 19:31-44.
California State Department of Education. 1991. School Performance Report 1989-90. Sacramento. Photocopy.
California State Department of Finance, State Census Date Center. 1991 Current Population Survey. Sacramento. Photocopy.
California State Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics. 1984. Public Health Dateline 4(12):4.
California State Department of Health Services, University of California, San Diego. 1991. "Preliminary Findings of the Tobacco Use in California in 1990 Survey." Sacramento. Photocopy.
California State Department of Public Health, Bureau of Child Hygiene. 1938. Maternal and Child Health Among Mexican Group in San Bernardino and Imperial Counties. Sacramento. Photocopy.
California State Employment Development Department. 1986. Socio-economic Trends in California, 1940-1980. Sacramento. Photocopy.
Catterall, J.S. 1988. "School Reforms and School Dropouts in California: Tracking the Linkages." Unpublished paper. Photocopy.
Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System. 1989. A Survey of Newly Legalized Persons in California. San Diego: San Diego Community College District Foundation for Educational Achievement.
Gilbert, M.J., and Cervantes, R.C. 1986. "Patterns and Practices of Alcohol Use Among Mexican Americans: A Comprehensive Review." Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 8:1-60.
Glazer, N. 1988. The Limits of Social Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Harrington, M. 1962. The Other American: Poverty in the United States. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Hayes-Bautista, D., Schink, W., and Chapa, J. 1988. The Burden of Support: Young Latinos in an Aging Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hurtado, A., Hayes-Bautista, D.E., Valdez, R.B., and Hernandez, A.C.R. 1992. Redefining California: Latino Social Engagement in a Multicultural Society. Los Angeles: UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center.
James, F.J. 1988. Persistent Urban Poverty and the Underclass: A Perspective Based on the Hispanic Experience. Claremont, CA: The Tomás Rivera Center.
Lewis, M.A., and Hayes-Bautista, M. 1991. Incidence of Drug Births in Los Angeles County: An Interim Report. Presentation made at the School of Nursing, UCLA.
Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, Data Collection and Analysis Division. 1985, 1987. A Report on Selected Health Status Indicators. Vols 1, 2. Los Angeles. Report.
Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, Data Collection and Analysis Division. 1989. Vital Statistics of Los Angeles County, 1986. Los Angeles. Report.
Los Angeles Times. October 10, 1990.
Los Angeles Times. August 24, 1991.
Los Angeles Times. March 23, 1991.
Marín, G., Pérez-Stable, E., Marín, B.V. 1989. "Cigarette Smoking Among San Francisco Hispanics: The Role of Acculturation and Gender." American Journal of Public Health 79(27):196-198.
Mead, L.M. 1991. "The New Politics of the New Poverty." The Public Interest 103:3-20.
Montoya, R., Hayes-Bautista, D.E., González, L., and Smeloff, E. 1978. "Minority Dental School Graduates: Do They Serve Minority Communities? Preliminary Results from a Survey of Practice Location of Recent Minority Graduates." American Journal of Public Health 68(10):1017-1019.
Moore, Joan. 1988. "An Assessment of Hispanic Poverty: Is there a Hispanic Underclass?" Paper presented at Seminar on Persistent Poverty Among Hispanics, The Tomás Rivera Center, San Antonio, Texas. San Antonio, Texas: The Tomás Rivera Center.
Moynihan, D.P. 1965. The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. Washington, D.C.: Office of Policy Planning and Research, U.S. Department of Labor.
Murray, C. 1984. Losing Ground: American Social Policy. 1950-1980. New York: Basic Books.
National Institute of Health. 1991. "Guide for Grants and Contracts." 20(July):29.
Newsweek. August 19, 1991. "Falling Further Behind."
Norris Cancer Center. 1991. Cancer in Los Angeles. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
Novak, M. 1972. The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics. New York: The Macmillan Company.
