This monograph presents findings from an analysis of adults participating in the California Identity Project, a statewide survey of the Latino and Anglo (non-Latino White) populations. The project began in the summer of 1988 with a planning grant from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation which later supported the full-scale endeavor beginning in January 1989 through October and ending 1990.
This study draws heavily on the experience and results of the 1979 National Chicano Survey conducted by the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research under the direction of Dr. Carlos Arce and Dr. Patricia Curin. It also benefits from prior work conducted at the RAND Corporation, summarized in "The Current and Future Effects of Mexican Immigration on California, Executive Summary," RAND Publication R-3365/1-CR. November 1985.
This monograph contains detailed information about the California Latino population. It is the first of a series of monograph based on the information collected by the California Identity Project. We hope it will be of interest to those concerned with providing goods and services to Latinos as well as public officials and public policy analysts.
Background for the California Identity Project
The purpose of the California Identity Project was to provide a social psychological portrait of the Latino population in California to help policymakers and other interested individuals ease the transition to a multicultural society.
Study Methods and Approach
The California Identity Project conducted two surveys under the auspices of the Chicano Studies Research Center at the University of California, Los Angeles. The first was a statewide survey consisting of 1,086 face-to-face interviews with Latino heads-of-households. The second was a statewide telephone survey of 600 Anglos.
Results: Latino Survey
Family
Education
Work
Identity
Results: Anglo Survey
There are two main responses from Anglos to the increasing cultural diversity in the state.
There have been dramatic changes in the population of California in the last 50 years. In 1940, Latinos were indeed a minority constituting only 6% of the state's population, or approximately 374,000 California residents. By 1980, however, the Latino population had reached 4 million and had nearly doubled by 1990 to over 7 million. Currently, one out of every four Californians is Latino. Public and private projections estimate that by the year 2000 nearly one third of the state's population will be Latino. The sheer size of the Latino population has enormous political, economic, and social importance to everyone in California.
The composition of the Latino population in California has also changed since 1940. As recently as 1960, immigrants were relatively rare, less than 20% of Latinos were foreign born, arriving primarily from Northern Mexico. By 1980, however, 37% of Latinos were Foreign born, with increasing numbers of immigrants from all parts of Mexico and other countries of Latin America. Since 1980, immigration from Latin America continues at a rapid pace. We expect that the 1990 United States Census will show immigrants make up the majority of California Latino adult population. We address the implications of these dramatic sociodemographic changes fro social policy initiatives in California, initiatives that affect Latinos as well as other residents of California.
We would like to thank the many persons who made contributions to this work. We benefited from the assistance of numerous UCLA students during the field operations. We thank Graciela Díaz, Adalberto Huerta, Olga Rodríguez, Mayola Rodríguez, Myra Ayala, Sandra Leal, Claudia M. Lara, Francie Córdova, Regina Pérez, Fernando Paredes, Paul Cheng, Leticia Torres, and Philip Garnier for their meticulous efforts. We gratefully acknowledge the efforts of Luisa Flaim of Yankelovich, Clancy, and Chulman and Oti Baghdasarian of Research International. We also thank our Faculty Advisory Committee, in particular our UCLA colleagues, Dr. Vilma Ortiz and Dr. David López. We also thank other colleagues who were not part of our Advisory Committee, but who nonetheless gave us valuable advice: Dr. Patricia Gurin, Dr. Gerald Gurin, Dr. Candace West, Dr. Craig Haney, and Dr. Patricia Zavella. We also thank colleagues from the Bilingual Research Group at UCSC and the Chicano Studies Research Center, UCLA. In addition, the enthusiastic support of our Community Advisory Committee provided the stimulus for our continued efforts.
Candelyn Candelaria and Alice Boatwright provided expert assistance in editing this material. Our gratitude to Ada Irma Arensdorf and Luis Vega for providing word processing support. We also thank The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation who funded our research. Responsibility for the content of the work rests solely with the authors.
Strategic planning for the future of California requires the answers to a number of questions regarding the state's changing population structure. These questions and the issues they raise are particularly keenly felt among the Latino population. This population has experienced dramatic growth since the 1940s. In 1940, only 6% of the state's population was Latino and most were native born. In 1990, it is estimated that at least one in four Californians are Latino and many are relatively recent immigrants (Levy, 1990); U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1991). The Latino population is expected to continue to grow at a rapid pace through the turn of the century.
This phenomenal growth, due both to increased levels of immigration in the 1970s and 1980s and high rates of natural increase, have dramatically changed the composition of the Latino population. Important differences in how Latinos feel about opportunities and quality of their lives could be expected among the native-born and the foreign-born segments.
This study was designed to answer questions such as: Have Latinos experienced educational progress? To what extent are Latinos experiencing job mobility? What values do Latinos hold dear? Will Latinos constitute an underclass population in California? It is vitally important to recognize the complex structure of Latino population in California.
Along with this phenomenal growth of the Latino population California has prospered and become more diverse, culturally, ethnically, and economically. This multicultural transformation has posed numerous strains on the state's infrastructure and created problems and pressures for communities as they learn to work with this diversity.
In an effort to help develop a long-range strategy for shaping the state's future, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation provided the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center with a grant to develop up-to-date information on Latinos in California. Given the compositional transformation and the expected size of this population, any plans for shaping California's future must take the heterogeneity of this population into account. In this report the preliminary findings of a statewide survey are presented.
This information serves several key purposes. First, it should help develop strategic plans that reflect the actual concerns of different segments of the Latino population. Treating this population as a monolithic group tends to underemphasize some concerns and heighten others. A "psychographic" profile of California's Latino population is presented which highlights the various segments of the population. Second, it identifies issues that concern the entire Latino population, immigrants and native born alike. Certain issues, such as school curriculum or discrimination potentially affect the entire community. Our findings indicate how much or how little consensus exist about different issues. Third, these data permit the initial development of a new way of conceptualizing the process of immigration and social adaptation in subsequent generations. Lastly, these results provide evidence of Latino support that regional and state leaders will need to act on the complex issues affecting the state.
There is substantial agreement within the Latino group about the following:
The California Identity Project, funded by a grant from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation conducted a statewide, face-to-face survey of Latino1 households and a telephone survey of Anglos to explore the developments of the emergent multicultural society in California. Our purpose was to identify the extent and types of social engagement emerging within a multicultural society that affect Latino communities.
Development of Survey Instruments
We collect numerous questionnaires from previous studies to outline the best measure for each of the areas our surveys address. From our research we concluded that many of the best measures came from the National Chicano Survey (NCS) conducted in 1979 by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan. The measures developed in the NCS followed a social psychological perspective and were validated on a national sample of Mexican descendants making them more reliable than those developed from regional samples. We also included measures from other studies, especially from the California polls conducted by the Field Institute in San Francisco. Our final questionnaire took 90 minutes to administer and was printed side-by-side in English and Spanish.2 The topics covered by the questionnaire include Latinos' cultural preferences, social and ethnic identity, participation in the labor force, family life, political participation, attitudes toward language use, and sociodemographic information.
The questionnaire for the telephone survey of Anglos was largely based on the topics we covered in the Latino survey. The Anglo data are not directly comparable to the Latino data because we used different survey methodologies for each survey.3 Nonetheless, they provide some information on the reactions of Anglos to the changing population in the state of California. The telephone questionnaire took 15 minutes to administer.
Samples
We designed a single-stage stratified random sample of 1,200 households to represent the total Latino population of California. It was drawn using the 1980 United States Census from California's metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas that had census tracts with at least 3% Spanish-origin population.
Bilingual interviewers who were familiar with Latino cultures conducted the face-to-face interviews in urban as well as rural areas.4 They completed a total of 1,086 interviews; 544 in English, and 541 in Spanish. Eligible respondents were heads-of-households or their spouses whose ancestry was at least one-half Latino (in other words, who had at least two grandparents who were of Latino ancestry). When only the head-of-household or the spouse was eligible, that person was interviewed; when both were eligible, one was randomly selected. By Latino descent we meant a person whose ancestry included grandparents or parents who came from Mexico, the Caribbean, or a Central or South American country. Iberian and other non-Latin American Hispanics were excluded from our eligible sample. We administered a short screening questionnaire to determine eligibility.
We drew the sample of 600 Anglos from the entire state of California through random digit dialing. Respondents who were head-of-household, or their spouses, completed a short questionnaire to determine eligibility and we excluded non-Anglo respondents from the sample.
Overview of the Latino and Anglo Samples
The work in this monograph is based on responses from 1,086 Latinos and 600 Anglos. Among the Latino sample, 84% of the respondents are of Mexican origin and 15% from other Latin American countries. Most Latinos who are not of Mexican origin come from El Salvador (7% of the sample) and Guatemala (4% of the sample). The remaining Latino respondents (4% of the sample) come from various countries such as Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Costa Rica. We us the ethnic tern Latino here to refer to the entire sample.
The average age from the Latino sample is 38 years; and the majority of respondents are married (68%) and have on average 2 children. Slightly over half (55%) of our sample is composed of women. In general, Latino respondents have 10 years of education and live in relatively large households (on average, 4 person per household). The majority (69%) of the Latinos are employed, although their average family income is low -- $21,700. Despite the fact that 65% of our respondents are foreign born, many are long-time residents of the United State with an average residency of 17 years fro Mexican immigrants, 9 years for Salvadorans and Guatemalans, and 11 years for other Latinos. Among the 35% who are United States born, 63% are native Californians, 14% are from Texas, and 9% from other states in the Southwest.
The sample of Anglos presents a different sociodemographic profile. The Anglos are relatively older (the average age was 46 years), the majority are married (59%), and live in smaller households than Latinos (an average of 2 people per household). Slightly over half (51%) of the sample are women. Anglos in our samples are as likely to be employed (71%) as Latinos but have higher average family incomes ($40,000). Their educational level is also higher with slightly over half (53%) reporting some college-level study. Most respondents (95%) were born in the United States and the majority (66%) of these are California natives.5
We divided our Latino sample by the number of generations each respondent's family has resided in the United States. Previous work shows that measures of language use and number of years of education, as well as other social indicators are related to how long individuals have resided in the United States (Chapa, 1988; McCarthy & Valdez, 1985). The respondent's gender is also related to many of these measures -- for example, income and labor force participation. Therefore, we present the results separately for women and men whenever there are significant differences in any of the areas we asked about in our survey.
We define the following as first generation: those respondents born outside the U.S. who also had both parents born outside the United States; in the second generation, at least one of the three (either one of the parents or the respondents, usually the respondent) was born in the United States; and in the third generation, the respondents and the parents were born in the United States.
Although we use the term Latino in this monograph, the majority of Latinos in California, as in our sample, are of Mexican descent. In fact, eighty-four percent (N=913) of our Latino sample are of Mexican descent. Furthermore, most Latinos in California, as in our sample, are first generation. Out Latino sample 65% (n=707) first generation, and the largest portion of these respondents (79%, n=559) are of Mexican origin.
Reflecting the history of California and the recent immigration patterns, non-Mexican Latino respondents are all first generation. Therefore, the second- and third-generation respondents are exclusively of Mexican origin. The second generation constitutes 23% (n=224) and the third generation constitutes 12% (n=130) of the total sample (N=1,086).
The family plays an important role in Latino life, and the level of its importance does not diminish across generations; it is nearly as important for the third generation as it is for the first generation. Contrary to the stereotypes that pervade most of the social science literature (Madsen, 1964), the Latino families in our study are relatively egalitarian and supportive of women's rights. While Latino families across generations become increasingly supportive of women's rights, this evolution does not conflict with the importance and strength of the family. The notion of strong families and strong individuals are not mutually exclusive or incompatible.
Latino families are large and relatively stable. They most often are composed of couples with children, although there are many other types of Latino families, such as single parent-headed households, and single respondents who live with extended family.
In recent years, Anglo families and families of many other racial/ethnic groups in the United States have undergone important and profound changes -- reduction in size, the rise of non-nuclear family units, the increase in female-headed households, the increase of children and families living in poverty, and the necessity to adapt to changing economic arrangements and geographical mobility (Baca Zinn, 1989). Public and private circles express concern about the ability of families to weather such changes (Morrison, 1986; 1988). Indeed, the Latino and especially, African American family have been a source of concern for a long time (Allen & Farley, 1986; Anderson & Allen, 1984); focus on Anglo families is more recent (Baca Zinn, 1989).
The Moynihan Report (Moynihan, 1965) first raised concern about the apparent erosion of families in inner city areas, families most recently characterized by Lisabeth Schorr as "...men without jobs, women without husbands, children without fathers and families without money, hope, skills, opportunities" (Schorr, 1988:15). Liberal and conservative analysts alike are in agreement that the family, however it may be defined, is critical to the inculcation of values, norms, behavior, and aspirations.
Some scholars (Wilson, 1987; Schorr, 1988) link eroded family structure with poverty. The popular media follows suit by promulgating a vision of inner city families as nothing more than loosely related individuals living like urban tribes (e.g., Zinsmeister, 1990). While the direction of causality is debated -- did poverty cause eroded families or did eroded families cause poverty? -- it is generally agreed that families provide an important link to social participation (Baca Zinn, 1989). Therefore, some social analysts argue that poverty will be alleviated by promoting the traditional two-parent family.
Wilson (1987: 83-92, 145-146), for example focuses many of his recommendations on increasing the number of marriageable African American men by providing job training and employment. This would provide attractive marriage prospects for inner city women which, in turn, would stabilize African American families.
When Latino families have been included in the debate, policy options have been offered on the assumption that they, too, are nearly nonexistent and nonfunctional (Wilson, 1987: 26-27). Such assumptions ignore the vitality and resilience of the Latino family even in the face of severe economic stress.
This chapter describes California's Latino families along two dimensions: composition and perceptions about families and personal roles. First, we describe structural characteristics (i.e., marital status, household size, type of household, number of children, and number of relatives in Latin America). Second, we explore Latinos' perceptions about family life (i.e., importance of location, family orientation, husband-centered decision-making, support for women's self-direction, cultural identity, and language use patterns.
Family Composition
Most Latino respondents report being married (68%). Nationally, in 1988, among the Mexican-origin population of persons 15 years and older fewer men report being married than women (56.4% and 59.8%, respectively) (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1989). In contrast, in our sample men were more likely to report being married than women (70% compared to 61%), a consistent trend across the three generations.
There is variation from he first to the third generation in the proportion of women reporting marriage (see Figure 3.1). Among first-generation women, 66% report marriage whereas among the second and third generations, 60% and 57% respectively report being married. These differences in marriage rates, however, are not statistically significant.
Overall, California's Latinos live in households with an average of 4.2 people which is similar to the 3.8 people per Latino household reported in a 1988 Current Population Report (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1988a).
The first generation has the largest household size averaging 4.4 members (see Figure 3.2). The second and third generations have smaller households averaging 3.8 members. This difference in Household size between first-generation respondents and the rest of the sample is statistically significant.
Most respondents regardless of marital status live with others, either family or unrelated individuals (See Table 3.1). The most typical household composition across generations is the married couple with children. Second-generation men are the most likely to live in this type of household and first-generation women are the least likely to be married with children. Across all three generations, single men are more likely than single women to report living with nonrelatives.
Overall, we identified very few single heads-ho-household in our sample across the three generations (only 8% of our total sample). Women, however, are 10 times more likely than men to be in this type of household. Women are also more likely than men to be in the other two types of single-parent households (living with relatives; living with nonrelatives).
The proportion of nuclear families living with extended kin falls from the first generation (26%) to the second and third generations (12% and 9% respectively). Despite this decline, however, our respondents still feel that it is very important for relatives to live nearby (see Figure 3.6). The two most uncommon household arrangements are individuals living alone and the single head-of-households.
Over three-fourths of the sample (79%) have children under the age of 18. Both first (85%) and third (83%) generations are more likely to have children under the age of 18 than the second (61%) generation. In addition, in every generation, women are more likely than men to report having children (see Figure 3.3).
Most school-age children (6-18 years) are in school (see Figure 3.4). Very few of these children are primarily active in the labor force (16%). Furthermore, only 13% of the first-generation children between the ages of 16 and 18 are working for pay as their primary activity in comparison to 25% of the second generation and 11% of the third generation.
Eighty-two percent of our respondents have relatives in Latin America (see Figure 3.5). However, the majority of these are first generation respondents (76%) and their relatives living in Latin America are extended family members such as grandparents (49%), parents (67%), and aunts and uncles (91%). Very few of our respondents have their nuclear families in Latin America; of our entire sample, only 5% have spouses and 11% have children living there. Given our sample's average age, it is not surprising that first-generation respondents have already established their families here.
Family and Family Role Perspectives
The size of the family has important social implications, but size and other sociodemographic characteristics provide little understanding of the significance of the family for Latinos. We find that Latinos place great value on the idea of family and that this value changes little over generations.
We asked our respondents how important it is for various family members to live nearby to examine the role that extended kin play in family life. We asked respondents to rate how important it is to have their mothers, fathers, siblings, grandparents, adult children and in-laws live nearby. The physical proximity of family members makes it possible to have social interaction, providing continuous opportunity to renew family bonds and exchange material and emotional support. A scale was created from the responses to the items about family members' proximity. A high score on this scale indicates that the respondents believe living geographically close to family members is very important (the score ranged from 10 to 30). Overall, the responses were clustered around the midpoint of the scale indicating Latinos' preference for geographic closeness to members of their extended family (see Figure 3.6). Men and women do not differ in the amount of preference for having family members close by. Furthermore, there is little change in this preference from first- to the third-generation respondents.
The family orientation scale is also a measure of our respondents' attitude toward the functions they feel the family should fulfill. The attitudinal statements include: whether family or friends are more important, whether children should take on responsibilities within the family, whether wives should have similar rights and powers to those their husbands have. In essence, this scale measures the extent to which an individual sees the family as a nurturing unit, providing support for an individual while simultaneously providing an opportunity for individual growth and freedom. A high score indicates that the family is viewed as an important arena for personal development without seeing it as restrictive. Low score indicate that the family is viewed as a hindrance rather than a resource (scores range from 10 to 40).
In the first generation, men and women score equally high (35 on this scale; see Figure 3.7). There is only slight variation by the second generation, with women scoring lower than men. By the third generation, the scores of women are the same as for the first generation, and the third-generation men score slightly higher than the first-generation men. Therefore, Latinos perceive the family as a personal resource rather than a hindrance to personal development.
Husband-Centered Decision-Making. We asked our respondents about the extent to which they agree or disagree that a wife should do whatever the husband wants, a husband should make all the important decisions in a marriage, only girls should do housework, only men should work to provide for the family. A person who agrees with all of these items believes that the husband has the right to make all the decisions in the family (40 is the highest score). A low score indicates that the husband should not be the sole initiator of decisions and definition of roles within the family (10 is the lowest score possible; See Figure 3.8).
Our sample does not share the stereotypical views of a dominant husband and a submissive wife (Madsen, 1964). In the first generation, that is, women and men born outside the United States did not endorse the husband-dominated family as ideal. By the second generation, the endorsement for these values, for both men and women decline, and by the third generation, the endorsement declines further. In the third generation, women and men endorse equal decision-making in families.
In general, our sample does not endorse a family structure where the husband dominates, directing family life at his discretion. First generation immigrants do not begin their lives in this country with this attitude and this husband-centered tendency diminishes even further across generations.
Like Latino families, Latina women have been portrayed in the social science literature as passive and submissive even to the point of not seeking birth control or abortion services because they adhere to opinions advanced by the authority figures in their lives. Our findings do not support this caricature of Latino family life. We asked respondents whether they agree or disagree that women can make decisions about themselves and their activities that may have some effect on the family: men should do housework, it is appropriate for the wife to earn more than the husband, women have the right to use birth control, women have the right to decide if they want an abortion. A high score on this scale indicates respondents support the notion that women have the right to make decisions that affect them and their families (40 is the highest score possible). Respondents who score low disagree with women's self-direction (10 was the lowest score possible; see Figure 3.9).
Our findings indicates that Latinos as a group support women's right to make decisions about important aspects of their lives such as birth control. Women are slightly more supportive of their rights than are men, but the difference are not statistically significant. Among the men, the first generation is just slightly more supportive than the second generation and the third generation is the most supportive.
Endorsement of women's rights may reflect a highly selective immigration process. Latino immigrants in California are not a representative cross-section of Latin American society. These attitudes and feelings about women's rights and not respondents' actual behavior. Future research will have to address exactly what impact these attitudes toward women have on social interaction among family members.
Language Use in Latino Families. Respondents were asked what language they used with different family members. The responses ranged from only Spanish to only English on a five-point scale. Figure 3.10 shows the average responses by generation. First-generation respondents speak mostly in Spanish to their parents, spouse, and siblings. There is, however, considerable language transition when they speak to their children. Second-generation respondents transition quickly into English when they speak to their children and it carried over to interaction with parents and with spouses and siblings. Third-generation respondents exhibit almost the opposite language behavior of first-generation respondents. Whereas, first-generation respondents interact predominantly in Spanish, third-generation respondents reported speaking mostly in English to their spouses, siblings, and children. Third-generation respondents, however, still use some Spanish with their parents. Our respondents, however, demonstrate a high degree of English/Spanish bilingual skill and a concern for maintaining fluency in both languages (see Chapter 6) despite the rapid transition from Spanish to English dominance with each successive generation.
We asked our respondents the open-ended question: Think about your family. What aspect of Mexican/Latino culture and tradition do you feel are most important to preserve? By far, the most common response by all respondents regardless of generation, is cultural tradition (66%) such as Spanish language, Latino customs, and Latino history. This is followed by other values (13%) such as religion, morality, and respect. Third, respondents mention family values (10%) such as the importance of family unity, respect for older people, and the importance of maintaining contact with relatives.
Indeed, families play a strong role in transmitting Latino culture and values. There is no disagreement among all respondents on what aspect of Latino culture should be transmitted to their children. The fact that Mexican/Latino culture has deep historical roots in the tending of the land is reflected by the emphasis our respondents give to communal values such as ties to family, community, and commitment to their ethnic group.
Figure 3.11 shows the top three ethnic terms chosen by our respondents to refer to themselves when speaking to other people. The first generation has a strong allegiance to the term Mexican, but slowly this shifts, over the three generation, incorporating elements of United States social identity. By far the first generation prefers the term Mexican (53%), followed by Hispanic (13%) and Latino (11%). By the second generation, Mexican drops to second place (19%) and Mexican American is chosen first (25%), followed by American of Mexican Descent (16%). The third generation prefers ethnic terms that denote both allegiance to the United States and to their Latino heritage such as Mexican American (31%), American of Mexican Descent (21%) and Hispanic, Mexican and American (these three were chosen by 10% of our respondents).
Social context affects the ethnic terms respondents choose (Hurtado & Arce, 1987). Therefore, we also asked our respondents what terms they use within their families (see Figure 3.12). In this case, the first-generation respondents chose the same ethnic term as used with people in general but the second and third generation use Mexican more often within family than with other people and are more likely to use the global term Latino and Hispanic with outsiders than with family members. The Latino-specific heritage is therefore displayed most often within the family -- for example, being Mexican -- reinforcing the individual's ethnic identity.
The Latino Family:1900-2000
Much of today's social policy is based on assumption that families are eroding. However, our data show that Latino family structure, while varied, is composed primarily of intact families and imbued with rich family values. Overall, the family plays an important role in Latino social life. Furthermore, families are as important to the largely English-speaking third generation as they are to the first generation immigrant. We further found that Latinos, at least in their family attitudes, do not easily fit the stereotypical male-dominated model of authority within the household. The families in our sample express more egalitarian attitudes and place great importance on the family as a personal resource.
Nationally, the educational levels of Latinos are far behind the general population. In 1987, for example, only 51% of Latinos 25 years and older were high school graduates, compared with 78% of Anglos (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1988a). In California, 49% of Latinos 25 years and older had graduated from high school in 1987 and 6% had completed four years of more of college. Conversely, 78% of Anglos in the same age group were high school graduates and 23% had four years of college or more (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1988b). In our study, we found comparable rates with 43% of Latinos 25 years and older finishing high school and 6% finishing college.
Aggregate figures for the entire Latino population, however, mask dynamic important for designing educational and social efforts to improve Latino educational attainment. One of the most important factors is generational distance from Latin America. There is considerable variation in educational attainment from generation to generation among Latinos. For example, 56% of the first generation have a junior high school level education or less; but only 21% of the second generation and 7% of the third generation (see Figure 4.1 ceased their education at this level.
High school completion rates also differ across generations. Only 25% of the first generation have completed high school. By the second generation, the high school completion rate rises to 59% and by the third generation, it reaches 70%. As Figure 4.1 demonstrates, low education levels among Latinos reflect the mix of immigrant and native born education histories. Immigrants generally arrive from Latin America with an elementary or junior high school education. The first generation's "lack of achievement" does not simply reflect the "drop-out" phenomena often associated with Latino educational progress but rather educational achievement in the country of origin. Therefore, there exists a considerable need for adult education and training efforts among the immigrant segment of the Latino population. Furthermore, as parents, their preparation to assist their children with school work is hampered by their lack of familiarity with the U.S. education system and its curriculum.
Few Latinos complete college. In fact, only 3% of the first generation, 8% of the second generation, and 10% of the third generation finish college. Respondents also vary on how many attend college by the number of generations they have resided in the United States. For example, 11% of the first generation has attended some college, 24% of the second-generation respondents and 29% of the third-generation respondents.
The educational attainment of both men and women increases across generations (see Figure 4.2).
There are differences, however, between men and women within each generation. For example, 64% of first-generation women have only a junior high school education compared to 48% of men. Third-generation men are more likely to complete high school (79%) than third-generation women (65%). And, for all generations, women are less likely to complete college than men.
The one source of light in this otherwise dim educational picture is that intergenerational comparisons in educational attainment show extraordinary gains. Figure 4.3 shows comparisons for educational attainment between respondents and their fathers and their mothers. First-generation respondents have achieved an average of 8.8 years of education; their fathers attained only 5.7 years of schooling, while their mothers attained 4.1 years. Second-generation respondents have attained 10.9 years while their fathers and mothers attained 6.5 and 6 years respectively. Third-generation respondents have attained nearly 12 years of education while their fathers and mothers had only 8 and 9 years respectively. These intergenerational gains reflect the increased importance of education in Latin America and the United States.6 Latinos, however, need to accelerate their educational attainment because the increased educational demands for post-secondary education in the post-industrial society. Few Latinos attend and graduate from college. Many do not even finish high school in the face of persistent poverty. These data suggest the need for both adult and children's educational initiatives.
The Impact of Latino Culture on Educational Attainment
The discrepancy between second- and third-generation Latinos' and Anglos' educational attainment is explained in several ways by social science research. Explanations offered for these differences range from genetic inferiority to cultural deprivation (Carter & Segura, 1979; Sue & Padilla, 1986; Walker, 1987). The lack of assimilation or slow assimilation to mainstream values remain the most widely used explanation for Latinos' lack of educational attainment.
From an assimilation framework, Latinos are not motivated to acquire more education because they have not assimilated the mainstream culture's value of education. Latino culture, therefore, must be deficient because it does not socialize its children with the values and motivation necessary to succeed in the educational system. From an assimilation perspective, as Latinos become more assimilated into the mainstream culture, they will reach the same educational levels as Anglos. This assimilation framework, however, fails to explain why third-generation respondents do not attain the same level of education as Anglos (Chapa, 1988). If this perspective is correct, then we should expect to find that immigrant Latinos place little value on education and jettison their values in place of "American" values.
We examined 1) whether Latinos indeed do not value education, and 2) whether they show a predisposition towards abandoning Latino culture and adopting mainstream Anglo values.
Contrary to the assimilation perspective, Latino parents express great interest in education but this enthusiasm has not been translated into school reforms or curriculum enhancements, such as mandatory multi-language education in primary and secondary schools. For example, 96% are willing to apply political pressure to have bilingual education in their schools. Our sample also argues for some form of affirmative action protection for their children, so that their educational aspirations can be realized. For example, an overwhelming majority (88%) agree that special measures should be taken to ensure that the same percentage of Latinos as other groups are admitted to college.
Our respondents, however, are interested in education but not at the expense of losing their Latino identity or culture. For example, the majority of Latinos in our sample agree that Latino history should be taught in schools, (92%). Furthermore, 77% of our respondents want their children to maintain Mexican/Latino culture. A sense of Latino identity remains deeply rooted and manifests itself in all three generations of respondents.
The Latino Culture Preference scale was developed to gauge respondents' commitment to Latino culture. This scale is based on responses to questions that measure an individual's involvement in different aspects of Latino culture such as reading Spanish-language media, watching Spanish-language television, films, performances, and visiting Mexico and Latin America. The possible scores on this scale range from 10 to 30; a score of 10 indicates that respondents are not interested in these activities and a score of 30 that they have a high preference for this type of cultural engagement (see Figure 4.4). Given that this scale is highly related to Spanish language ability, it is not surprising to see a decline in activity over each successive generation. However, for the third generation, it remains more desirable to be engaged in Latino culture than not.
Another aspect of maintaining Latino culture is commitment to maintenance of the Spanish language. Overall, there is a strong endorsement of Spanish/English bilingualism. Although the Spanish language serves as both a marker and a symbol of Latino identity, our respondents are adamant about their children acquiring proficiency in English. Parents want their children to learn Spanish as well as English, feeling that bilingualism will make their children more successful in the future. For example, 95% of the sample say that Latino children should learn to read and write in both Spanish and English. And, our respondents do not want to restrict the use of Spanish to the private realm; 75% of the sample disagree with the statement that Spanish should only be spoken at home.
Our respondents stress the connection between parental roles and the proper education of children. Respondents want to inculcate values that preserve Latino culture and demonstrate social and individual respect. For example, in response to the question, "What aspect of Mexican/Latino culture do you feel are most important to preserve?" The aspect mentioned most often is Spanish proficiency followed by Mexican/Latino customs and traditions that include respect for elders, honesty, and religion. Verbatim quotes illustrate the deep commitment to education which lies beyond the "academic" orientation commonly associated with mainstream, educational efforts.
Sus costumbres, como el respeto a sus padres, a sí mismos, la honradez y su cultura relgiosa. Tambíen la buena educacíon. [Their own customs, like respect for their parents and for themselves, honesty and their religious culture. And also good manners.] (Female respondent from Chino.)
For our respondents, preservation of Latino culture was essential to giving their children a sense of respect and place in the world that includes honoring their elders. The preservation of a sense of family is seen by our respondents as crucial:
Que los hijos vivan con sus padres, que no se vayan de la casa tan jóvenes y que sean respetuosos con sus padres. [That the children live with their parents, that they don't leave their home so young, and that they respect their parents.] (Female respondent from Chula Vista.)
Included in a sense of respect and place in the world is our respondents' emphasis on spirituality as expressed through religion:
La religíon, porque es la cosa principal de todo lo más importante. [Religion, because it is the most important thing.] (Male respondent from Boyle Height.)
Also, as part of their world view, our respondents feel that humility and modesty are important not only for learning from others, but to give to others such as family members:
La sencillez, el amor familia. [Humility, and the love of family.] (Male respondent from Pico Rivera.)
Teach my daughter to respect life, living things, nature, family and God. (Male respondent from Boyle Heights.)
Our loyalty to one another, to friends, to our family members. (Male respondent from Boyle Heights.)
The awareness of others' feelings and commitment to family requires discipline and a future orientation:
The traditions of respect and discipline. (Female respondent from Chula Vista.)
Sí hay que conservar el idioma y las costumbres. No dejo que mis hijos den disgustos. La disciplina mexicana es más estricta -- más se obedece que aquí. [Yes, we have to conserve language and traditions. I don't let my children cause trouble. Mexican discipline is more strict -- they are more obedient than here (U.S.).] (Female respondent from Boyle Heights.)
Respondents state that many values that are important to Latinos are expressed in how one treats other people and how one displays oneself in public including dress:
Mi forma de vestir, que yo conservo las tradiciones que mi mamá me impuso, como no vestirme como las americanas que exhiben lo que no deben, en su forma de vestir. [My way of dressing, that I preserve the traditions given to me by my mother, like not dressing like American women who exhibit what they shouldn't what they shouldn't, in their way of dressing.] (Female respondent from South Gate.)
In summary, our respondents think that the curriculum should include Latino history and culture, most of our respondents, regardless of generation, do no believe in assimilation, most of our respondents want affirmative action, and most of our respondents proclaim Spanish as essential to cultural maintenance, although they also recognize and strongly support the acquisition of English.
Despite extremely active participation in the work force, Latinos do not enjoy high economic returns. Our respondents report an average family income of $21,700 in 1989. Approximately 81% of men, and 60% of women are employed (see Figure 5.1). Furthermore, of the total sample of men (19%) who are not currently working , 37% of those are looking for work. Of the 40% of women not currently working, 14% are looking for work. Adding the figures for those currently working and those looking for work, Latino labor force participation is exceptionally high; 88% of the men and 65% of the women participate actively in the labor force.
Income
Latino family income remains very low despite vigorous participation in the work force (see Figure 5.2). We find little difference between the earnings of the first and the second generations. Furthermore, women report less family income in all three generations. Only third-generation men experience significant increase when compared to first-generation men. Third-generation women, however, have significantly less family income than men.
Industry
Men of all generations tend to be concentrated in manufacturing, construction, and other service industries (e.g., radio repair and video rental). Only the third-generation men have achieved much diversity, with nearly 25% of that generation in the "other" category of industry. Women tend, overwhelmingly, to be concentrated in manufacturing and in the service industries, with the third-generation women primarily in the service/professional industries.
Occupation
From our cross-sectional data, there is little occupational mobility from our first- to third-generation respondents (see Figure 5.3 and 5.4). The overwhelming majority of first-generation men hold blue-collar jobs (e.g., operatives, skilled laborers, and personal services workers). Sixty-nine percent of second and 67% of third-generation men hold blue-collar jobs (see Figure 5.3 ). It is interesting to note that occupational mobility does not correspond to the impressive increase in education level observed across our three generations of respondents (see Chapter 4). There was only a small increase of men in white-collar occupations (from 5% of first generation to 12% of third generation). First generation women are about evenly divided between blue-collar jobs and services, and the rest (21%) are employed in white- and pink-collar jobs (see Figure 5.4). The proportion of women in white- and pink-collar jobs doubles by the second generation -- largely in the pink-collar sector, which is characterized by low wages and part-time work and no fringe benefits. The percentage of women in blue-collar jobs decline across generations. The lack of occupational mobility is reflected in the lack of increase in income from our first-generation respondents to our third-generation respondents.
Respondents recognize their weak labor market positions and discrimination in the labor market. Two-thirds agree that Latinos receive promotion rarely or not at all in their work. When asked about their personal experience, on in three of the first generation think that they personally have found it difficult to get a promotion because they are Latinos, whereas one in five second- and third-generation respondents report that job promotion is difficult do to racial or ethnic discrimination.
Furthermore, Latinos are in highly segregated workplaces. First-generation Latinos work in places where all or most of their co-workers are Latinos (59%) whereas the second generation report 33%, and among the third generation, only 22% report working in places where all or most co-workers are Latino (see Figure 5.5).
Job Benefits
Despite a high level of employment, most respondents enjoy very few job-related benefits. In general, the proportion receiving fringe benefits such as medical insurance coverage, retirement plans, and paid vacation time increases for first to third generation reflecting the shifting occupational and industrial profile. Furthermore, men are more likely than women to receive benefits as part of their job.
Medical Insurance Coverage. First-generation women have the lowest level of medical coverage (39%), reflecting the occupations and industrial sectors in which these women work (see Figure 5.6). Just slightly over half of first-generation men report job-related medical insurance coverage (54%). Hence, first-generation families face great financial and personal risk in the event that medical attention is required even though these respondents are regularly employed. Among the second generation, 57% of women and 71% of men report medical coverage. Among the third generation about 74% of the women and 81% of the men have medical coverage.
Retirement Plan. Only about one in five (23%) first-generation respondents report retirement plans (see Figure 5.7). Therefore, a large group of Latinos, will work for many years and will have no cushion of support in their old age. The undocumented segment of this group may not even be eligible for Social Security pensions. About half of the second and third generation report retirement plan coverage.
Paid Vacation. The first generation, which overall has the lowest level of economic mobility, reports few paid vacation days compared to second and third generations (6 days yearly in the case of the first generation women and 7 for first generation men). Second-generation women and men report 9 days, and third-generation women report 10 days, and men 14 days (see Figure 5.8).
Union Membership. Union membership may also be used as an indicator of job stability. Few first-generation respondents report union membership (14%), but 30% of the second and third generation participate in labor unions.
Women in all three generations are behind men in terms of income, occupation, and benefits. Women lag behind men by one generation in income, medical insurance coverage, and paid vacation days. In other words, second-generation women have income and benefits about equal to those of first-generation men. The pay and benefits earned by third-generation women are about equal to those of second-generation men.
Latinos' high participation rate in the work force does not result in economic gains. The cross-sectional nature of the sample illustrates these patterns as well since all three generations are approximately equal in age, and a re in the prime years of working life. Thus, the inexperience of youth does not enter this picture.
Poverty Rates
in 1987, the national poverty rate of non-Latino families was 9.7 percent (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1988a). However, thirty-six percent of Latino families in our sample live in poverty (see Figure 5.9). The rate is higher for Latino women (40%) than for Latino men (31%). The poverty rate decreases for both men and women in each successive generation. However, the rates are much higher and decrease much more slowly for women than men. The lowest rate is 20% for third-generation Latino men.
Undocumented
Undocumented respondents show the highest level of work force activity (74% employees). They receive, however, the lowest return for their efforts compared to other Latinos. Undocumented Latinos have the lowest average income ($18,843), the lowest levels of medical insurance (43%) and retirement plan coverage (22%), and the fewest days of paid vacation (5.7 days).
Compared to undocumented men, undocumented women receive fewer benefits. Women, compared to men, have lower average family incomes ($16,739 vs. $20,728), the least medical (36% vs. 48%) and retirement plan coverage (16% vs. 25%) and the fewest days of paid vacation (3.9 days vs. 6.9 days). With these meager returns, undocumented individuals, especially undocumented women, have a difficult time providing for a family. Obviously, this difficulty is not due to the lack of employment.
Current immigration policy penalizes the work ethic. Despite the contribution to the growth and vitality of the state's economy (McCarthy & Valdez, 1985), undocumented workers are punished for the very act of working. Furthermore, undocumented workers have limited jobs that offer little of no economic mobility, low pay, and few benefits. Despite this situation, undocumented workers raise families and attempt to pass along desirability of work (see Chapter 3).
Occupational Mobility
To aid the first generation, the link needs to be broken between legal residency in the United States and occupational mobility. Immigrant entrepreneurship could be advanced as it was for Cuban immigrants during the 1960s. Adult educational and training opportunities could help upgrade skills and facilitate occupational mobility.
Furthermore, the so-called glass ceiling of Latino occupational mobility needs to be broken. Affirmative action programs could continue to create a "pipeline" that allows the use of a growing motivated work force.
For a targeted program, funded through public and private efforts, is essential to prepare second- and third-generation Latinos for administrative, professional and technical positions. The medical profession has already begun such a program successfully. In 1969, there were a total of 3 Latino medical students in California's 8 medical schools. By 1990, there were 150 Latino medical students. Affirmative action programs, recruitment targeting Latinos, and support services for Latino students, in these schools have all helped to make the difference. Similar strategies could be implemented in other areas. Latinos in our study have very positive attitudes about upward social mobility but lack the means to manifest their attitudes in behavior.
The successful functioning of a state requires that its citizens share a common vision of civic culture. A shared vision can be expressed in many ways: support for the basic institution of the state, participation in the decision-making process, and a sense of a "stake" in the outcome of society. As California develops a multicultural population, some have asked whether there will be a shared civic culture in California by the year 2000.
In this chapter we outline the components of the Latino civic vision -- their perspectives on national identity, civic identity, ethnic identity, and linguistic identity. The civic landscape as perceived by Latinos draws upon their expectations, desires, fears, and hopes for themselves, their families, their communities, and the large society.
Latinos share a coherent civic vision that remains fairly constant across generations. This vision is not only compatible with but reinforces "traditional American" values of individual freedom, personal responsibility, and commitment to democracy.
Latinos Espouse Many Traditional Civic Values
The popular media often portrays Latinos in California as a social drain, alleging welfare system abuse and a range of illegal activities that presumably indicate a different set of values. Yet our data shows that Latinos espouse similar, but broader, civic values than those held by the mainstream. Latinos strongly value family (see Chapter 3), work (see Chapter 5), religion, and political commitment to the United States.
Most Latinos identify their religion as Catholic (81%). However, recently many Latinos actively participate in Protestant and Evangelical churches (see Figure 6.1). Latinos, also attend church frequently; 65% report that they go to church at least once a month. Women attend church more frequently than men (see Figure 6.2).
Latinos also exhibit a high degree of civic consciousness and patriotic spirit. Among our sample, 91% agree that the U.S. is the best place to make a life for oneself and one's family and 87% feel that a child growing up in the U.S. has a better life than a child growing up in Mexico or Latin America. Speaking directly, their civic vision is that the U.S. has the best system of government (70% of our respondents agree with this statement).
The Importance of Latinos' Social Identity
Our respondents also hold a very coherent view about being Latino. They see no contradiction between being both Latino and American, but rather perceive both social identities as vital elements of a holistic view of self and community.
In this study a distinction is made between categorical and disposition aspects of self. The former comprises an individual's social identity, the latter an individual's personal identity (Zavaloni, 1973). We focused on social identity -- the part of an individual's self-concept that derives from his/her knowledge of various group memberships, together with the value and emotional significance attached to those memberships (Tajfel, 1981). Latinos not only focus on their ethnicity to determine their identities but recognize that some members of their group are farmworkers, others working class; some are Catholics, others Protestant; some are recent immigrants, others third generation. They use these various distinctions to construct different social identities. Therefore, we used a multidimensional measure of social identity to capture this heterogeneity.
Our respondents were presented with 49 labels depicting ethnicity, nationality, race, class, family, and gender categories in the form of a deck of cards (see Table 6.1). They were read each card and retain the ones that described how they thought about themselves. Table 6.1 shows the percent endorsement for each of these labels. Six different categories dominated their selections: Family identity, ethnic identity, religious identity, racial identity, class identity, and political identity.
Family Identity
By far, Latinos endorse the family terms at higher rates than any of the other dimensions. This is especially true for their social identities as parents (father/mother). This is consistent with the findings presented previously on family life (see Chapter 3).
Ethnic Identity
The ethnic labels respondents chose varied by generation. For the first generation, the top three ethnic labels are: Hispanic (88%), Latino (86%), and Mexican (76%); for the second generation: Hispanic (83%), Californian (81%), and American of Mexican descent (78%); and for the third generation: Mexican American (85%), Hispanic (83%), and American (82%) as well as American of Mexican descent (82%). All three generations share a Mexican core identity. But other global terms such as Hispanic and Latino also were commonly endorsed. With each successive generation respondents feel a stronger affiliation with the United States. Whereas only 18% of the first generation identifies itself as American, by the third generation, 82% feel they are indeed American. This is also true of other ethnic labels that denote affiliation with their ethnic group and with the United States: Mexican American (85%), American of Mexican descent (82%), and Hispanic American (76%).
Religious Identity
Over 50% of our respondents identify themselves as being a "religious person" regardless of their religious affiliation. Although 81% of our respondents report their religious affiliation as Catholic, only 77% identify with the religious labelCatholic. Very few of our respondents identify themselves as Protestant (10%) and as Jewish (4%).
Racial Identity
Latinos identify with a variety of racial labels. The Latino population, like the United States population, is racially heterogeneous. The many conquests that Mexico has undergone, as well as immigration from all over the world, results in a racial heritage that includes Native Indians, Europeans, Africans, and Asians. This heterogeneity is reflected in the number of racial identifications chosen by our respondents. The color term brown, however, is the most commonly chosen by all three generations.
Class Identity
Few of our respondents across the three generations identify themselves as professionals (21%, 13% and 40%, respectively). There is, however, a change in the social status identification from the first generation (of whom 61% identify themselves as working class) to the second and third generations, (who identify themselves as middle class 76% and 78% respectively).
Political Identity
The most notable increase in political identification is the increase in party affiliation. Among the first generation, 32% identify themselves as Democrats, a figure that increases to 70% by the third generation. The percentage of respondents who identify themselves as conservatives increases from the first generation to the third generation (26%, 36%, and 44%, respectively) but many consider themselves liberals (24%, 36%, and 36%, respectively). The number of Republicans remains small in all three generations (13%, 14%, and 19%, respectively).
There are notable increases across the three generations in the number of English speakers (37%, 77%, and 85%, respectively), United States citizens (21%, 85%, and 90%, respectively), and United States natives (8%, 76%, and 84%, respectively). Across the three generations, 87%, 79%, and 65%, respectively, identify themselves as Spanish speakers.
Language: Convergence of Bilingualism
The question of language diversity has been one of the most controversial political issues in California. On one side of the debate are those who believe that a single language is a necessary condition for a coherent civic vision and that its exclusive use must be mandated. English-only organizations are committed to decreasing language diversity through legal and political avenues. Supporters of language diversity have not been as visible in the media (Hurtado, 1991), and part of their task has been to demystify the assertions of the English-only supporters. (Padilla, 1991).
Overview of English and Spanish Skills
Our Latino sample reflects a population that is largely English/Spanish bilingual. Of those who responded in Spanish to our questionnaire, 86% report understanding English, 80% speak English, and 72% read English (see Figure 6.3).
Only a minority of Spanish speakers do not have any English-language skills. Similarly, respondents who took the interview in English, 99% claim to understand Spanish, 98% speak Spanish, and 90% read Spanish (see Figure 6.4). In general, speaking both Spanish and English is the norm.
Generational Stability and Change
Previous sociolinguistic research shows that with each successive generation in the United States, English skills become more prominent while Spanish skills decline. One important caveat to be kept in mind, however, is that English skills are taught in the schools and for this population Spanish has become a "folk" language with very few of its speakers ever obtaining formal education in this language. Therefore, in order to understand language shift from Spanish to English, we examined the skill least affected by formal education -- the understanding of English and Spanish. We asked our respondents: How well do you understand a conversation in English? and we asked the same question for Spanish.
Indeed, English and Spanish skills are not equally distributed among our respondents; they vary from generation to generation as shown in Figure 6.5 and 6.6.
Among respondents who took he interview in Spanish, the first generation's ability to understand Spanish is quite high (close to Very Well), while their ability to understand English is limited (between Little and Some English). By the second generation, respondents are able to understand English between Some and Well while their ability to understand Spanish does not decline significantly. For the third generation, Spanish ability remains constant (between Well and Very Well), but their English ability increases to almost Very Well. Among Spanish-interviewed respondents, English-language skills have been acquired, but not at the expense of Spanish.
English-interviewed respondents show a comparable pattern. In the first-generation, the ability to understand both English and Spanish is quite high (ranging from Well to Very Well). In the second generation, respondents have equal ability in English and Spanish. By the third generation, however, English ability remains the same but Spanish ability decline. In general, this indicates Latinos do not substitute English for Spanish, but become bilingual.
In order to understand the place of language in a multicultural society, it is necessary to understand the difference between language as behavior and language as symbol. Although Spanish ability remains stable over three generations, this does not interfere with the acquisition of English skills. Our data do not substantiate the assertion of English-only proponents that Latinos do not want to learn English. However, Latinos' social identity as Spanish speakers remain very stable across the three generations. In addition, when we asked our respondents the open-ended question: Think about your family. What aspect of Mexican/Latino culture and traditions do you feel are most important to preserve? By far, the most frequently mentioned characteristic is the Spanish language:
El lenguaje, porque me gustaría que mis hijos lo conservan. [The language, because I would like my children to retain it.] (Female respondent, Los Angeles)
El idioma sobre todo, porque es nestro y sirve de musho en el futuro. [Our language above all else because it's ours and will be very helpful in the future.] (Female respondent, Los Angeles)
Speaking Spanish, because...the language is our culture. (Male respondent, Fresno)
Latinos feel that speaking Spanish is an important part of their social identity but that does not mean, in any way, that they reject English or that they reject participating in California society. Latinos do not see the issue as choosing between English or Spanish -- rather they recognize a need to develop both English and Spanish. Unfortunately, some people may interpret the desire to maintain Spanish as a rejection of English, and possibly as a rejection of a shared civic identity.
Latinos also express a desire for multiculturalism and a strong commitment to bilingual interactions through their attitudes toward language. We measured this through an index that include attitudinal statements: People who know two languages are more successful, Latino children should learn to read and write both in Spanish and English; and Everyone in California should know English. A low score (10) on this scale indicates rejection of bilingualism and a high score (40) indicates acceptance of bilingualism as highly desirable. As a group, Latinos score in the middle 30s, with virtually no difference over three generations (see Figure 6.7). First-generation respondents are as likely to support bilingualism as the third generation.
Latinos Desire Increased Political Participation
Latinos' strong identification with their ethnic group provides a means for political mobilization. In our sample, 72% feel that whatever happens to Latinos has an effect upon them as individuals, and 60% feel that political movement for Latino rights affects them personally. Latinos feel a common bond of destiny with members of their ethnic group.
Although Latinos are culturally heterogeneous, they share very similar views on broad political ideas. For example, 73% of the native-born respondents agree that non-United States citizens should be allowed to vote in local school board elections. And, congruently, 27% agree that citizens who do not speak English should not be allowed to vote. Fully 81% of the native-born Latinos believe that immigrants experience discrimination or unfair treatment in their daily lives, and 90% would be willing to welcome recent immigrants into their neighborhood.
Engagement in Political Expression
Latinos endorse the political process through a variety of avenues: voting, working for candidates, joining a demonstration, boycotting goods, writing letters to editors and to public officials, and pressuring employers to hire Latinos. Figure 6.8 shows the scores on a scale that measures attitudes toward political expression. A low score (10) indicates that a respondent feels these activities are not a good thing to do and a high score (30) indicates that these things are a very good thing to do.
Latinos in all generations are above the midpoint of the scale indicating a generalized feeling of support for engaging in these types of activities. All three generations agree that these are desirable political expressions and immigrants are no less prone to political expression that those born in the United States.
Despite these attitudes in support of political expression, political actions remain limited. For example, by and large, only 13% of our respondents report membership in an organization of any kind. Yet, organizations in which Latinos participate play very significant political roles. For example, in Los Angeles there has been a rapid growth of parish-based political organizations such as U.N.O. (United Neighborhood Organization) in the past 10 years. Drawing on a combination of Vatican II reforms, Latin American liberation theology, and Saul Alinsky's ideas of grassroots community organizing, these groups blur the line between church-related activities and community activities. U.N.O., along with its three sister organizations (Valley Organized in Community Effort, in San Fernando Valley, the East Valley Organization Committee, in the San Gabriel Valley, and the South Central Organizing Committee in South Central Los Angeles) had an active membership of 100,000 persons in 1989. Given the importance of family and religion for Latinos, organizations such as these tap a deep concern about community politics within the Latino population.
A second example is the recent growth of professional, business, and advocacy organizations that attract Latino professionals. Among these are the Mexican American Grocers' Association, Chicano/Latino Medical Association, Hispanic MBA Association, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the National Association of Latino Elected Officials. These organizations do not have a large number of members (for example, there were only about 2,000 Chicano/Latino physicians in California in 1989) but they do have the capacity to harness the influence of Latino professionals.
Low Rates of Citizenship
In the future the most prominent obstacle to the political participation of Latinos will be their low rate of naturalization. Despite the large number of immigrants in our sample, very few are naturalized citizens; only 17% of the first-generation respondents had taken this step at the time of this interview even though, on average, they are long-time residents of the United States. Lack of citizenship, however, should not be mistaken for lack of interest in political expression. Figure 6.8 clearly shows that the largely noncitizen first generation is no less willing to engage in political expression that the third generation, most of whom are United State citizens.
Anglos Response to Latinos' Civic Vision
Anglos express a wide range of responses to the increasing number of Latinos in California. This variation is surprising because the media tends to highlight accounts of physical violence against immigrants and countless letters to the editor about the pernicious influence of Latinos in society (Hurtado, 1991). By and large there have been few reports of Anglos who help Latino communities through their actions such as toiling in Latino civic rights organizations or dedicating long hours to staff Latino medical clinics.
However, our telephone survey suggests two clusters of Anglo respondents: The Latino-sensitive and the Latino-insensitive. The Latino-sensitive respondents appreciate Latinos' contributions to California, desire a multicultural society, and support policies that increase Latinos' participation in California society. The Latino-insensitive respondents want no changes in the status quo. This group sees the cultural assimilation of all ethnic/racial groups into the mainstream as the solution to the increased cultural diversity in the state. The Latino-insensitive do not perceive any advantages in Latinos remaining culturally distinct. In general, the Latino-sensitive group composes about half of the sample, and the remainder are Latino-insensitive.
Regardless of whether the Anglo respondents support Latinos' right to be ethically distinct or not, they have limited contacts with Latinos: 87% report having few or no Latino neighbors. Despite lack of intimate contact with Latinos, Anglos report considerable interaction with Latinos -- 35% report A Lot, and 39% report Some. Obviously, the interactions take place in public arenas rather than in their intimate circles.
Latino-sensitive Respondents
Language
My son is in one (a bilingual education class) and when we go someplace and someone says something in Spanish, he understands them. (Male respondent from Pomona)
Because this is a bilingual state, I want my children to be bilingual. It would give them more job opportunities. (Male respondent from Stockton)
Language, specifically the place of Spanish in an English-speaking society, has been a burning political issue as exemplified in the English-only Amendment passed in 1986. Therefore, we did not expect to find substantial support for language diversity. In general, however, 60% of Anglos agree that people who know two languages are more successful in life than those who just know one and 61% express the opinion that Latinos should speak both Spanish and English equally. Surprisingly, 67% want their children to learn Spanish, and 51% agree that they would be willing to pay taxes to have bilingual education programs in the schools.
Despite the support for bilingualism expressed by Anglo respondents, actual Spanish-speaking ability is rare (only 8% evaluated their ability to speak Spanish as Well or Very Well, while 68% rated their ability A Little or Not At All). Yet a large number of respondents desire to learn Spanish -- 36% say that they would like to learn Spanish, and 42% feel that in general, Anglos should learn Spanish.
Latinos in Society
I feel that Latinos do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay and so do I. (Male respondent from San Diego)
I feel we have family values in common (with Latinos), values such as importance and closeness of the family. (Male respondents from Glendale)
The Latino-sensitive respondent generally views Latinos as productive members of society, contributing to the overall good. Among Anglos, 78% perceive that Latinos face A lot or Some discrimination, 51% believe that the police do not respect Latinos as much as they do Whites, and 68% feel that Latinos have to work harder than Whites to get ahead.
Anglos' opinions are evenly divided on what effect Latinos have on society. The Latino-sensitive group feels that Latinos will provide needed labor for jobs (23% state that this is very likely and 58% feel it is somewhat likely), and will enrich United States culture by new ideas and customs (26% state that this is very likely and 50% somewhat likely). Further, these respondents do not agree that an increased Latino population will mean more unemployment or more crime (26% state that is is not at all likely).
Multicultural Society Desirable
We're not all white anymore, and to act as if we were, would be wrong. (Female respondent from Friant)
Well, I'm married to a Spanish [Latino] man, and I'd love to see the heritage preserved. (Female respondent from Fairfield)
The majority of Anglos (63%) believe that in 50 years, Latinos will continue to be Latinos, retaining their language and culture. However, not all Anglos agree that Latinos' cultural retention is positive and beneficial. For example, 63% feel that Latinos should assimilate to mainstream Anglo culture.
Anglo-Latino intermarriage is not a problem for the Latino-sensitive since 45% disagree that Anglos can avoid marital problems by marrying other Anglos rather than Latinos. In summary, Latino-sensitive respondents believe that Latinos are the human beings on an equal footing with them, that everyone in the state deserves an education, and that bilingualism is personally desirable to for them and their children.
We turn now to the group of respondents who see problems for California's society and economy created by the increasing number of Latinos.
Latino-insensitive Respondents
Language
If people come to America, they should speak English. (Male respondent from San Jose)
I don't think we should teach foreign languages to our children. (Female respondent from Reseda)
The Spanish language is a very controversial issue for the Latino-insensitive respondents. They feel that Latinos should speak either Only or Mostly English (28%). This group of Anglos does not agree that people who know teo languages are more successful in life (40%), are not willing to pay taxes to have bilingual education in the schools (22%), do not want their children to learn Spanish (13%). At a personal level, the majority of these respondents (54%) do not feel that Anglos should learn Spanish.
Latinos in Society
Why should Whites pay taxes for others? (Female respondent from Concord)
They (Latinos) should raise the economics [sic] and produce like everyone else, and not just collect welfare. These people are taking advantage of the taxpayer. (Female respondent from Ventura)
Among Latino-insensitive respondents, 18% feel that Latinos face little or no discrimination, 31% disagree that Latinos have to work harder than Anglos to get ahead, and also 31% disagree that the police do not respect Latinos as much as they do Whites. Furthermore, the Latino-insensitive believe that Latinos will increase crime (17% state this is very likely and 46% somewhat likely), and they do not see that Latinos provide the needed labor for new jobs (19% not at all likely) or believe that Latinos will enrich United States culture by providing new ideas and customs (24% not at all likely).
Multicultural Society is Not Desirable
I have nothing in common with Latinos. (Male respondent from San Jose)
By paying taxes to have bilingual education, it seems like the state is pushing a different language to be more important than English. (Male respondent from Glendale)
Other than my sister married to one, not a damn thing [in common with Latinos]. (Female respondent from Brentwood)
The Latino-insensitive do not have positive opinions about a multicultural society and furthermore resent public monies spent on such concerns. About 33% of our respondents believe that Latinos will lose their language and culture within 50 years, and 36% think that intermarriage leads to marital problems. Furthermore, the greatest concern expressed about multicultural society is that it represents, in some fashion, a threat to national identity.
As mentioned earlier, averaging across questions, Anglos in our sample are about evenly split between Latino-sensitive and Latino-insensitive. The Latino-insensitive find a voice in such organizations as English Only and Light Up the Border, and have been taking initiative on major policy issues such as the passing of the state referendum making English the official language in California. From our survey, however, there appear to be an equally large group of Anglos who do not agree with these activities and behaviors. The Latino-sensitive have not been as vocal and therefore not as visible.
Latino Political Participation Policy: 1990-2000
For all the internal heterogeneity of the Latino population (by nativity, education, income, and occupation) we have encountered a civic vision that is surprisingly coherent. Furthermore, it is a civic vision shared with the dominant Anglo society. Yet Latinos insist on maintaining a sense of Latino-ness and do not see that as inconsistent with being American. Clearly, for Latinos, "American" culture is not synonymous with Anglo culture.
The Melting Pot Metaphor Will Not Be Functional in Multicultural Society
While the melting pot framework was the driving force behind social policy regarding immigrant groups for the past century, this metaphor may prove counterproductive in a multicultural society. New paradigms need to be developed which recognize the possibility of civic coherence built upon diversity.
Until recently, the definition of American encompasses mostly Anglos. Our data, however, show that "American" can also be "Latino", while "Latino" is not "Anglo". With the current restructuring of the political and economic order worldwide, American-style democracy and economy will be interpreted in many ways in many countries. Perhaps the most important reinterpretation will take place, not in Eastern Europe, but in California, as once again, America redefines itself.
California's unfolding demographic shifts will play a major role in shaping the state's policy agenda through the turn of the next century. This final section discusses several issues the growing Latinos population raise for California's economy, society, and public sector.
Latinos in California are a large, demographically diverse, and fast-growing population. These characteristics produce both promise and concern in an increasingly diverse state population. The youthful and optimistic nature of the Latino population represents California's promise of future economic success. But translating this promise into actual economic returns requires creative policy because the nature of the population will be so different from what has been faced before.
With proper investment in education and job skills, the state's economy should benefit considerably from the recent growth in the Latino population. First, as the Latino labor force matures (i.e., the fraction of younger workers declines) a more experienced Latino labor force should lead to increased productivity and wages. Second, Latinas increasingly will also join the labor force as the two-worker household becomes the state norm. This should increase the state's aggregate income and consumer demand. Third, the large share of immigrant supply the economy with an infusion of energy and entrepreneurial spirit.
The investment required to develop the full potential of this population, however, require education and training to match the skills needed by the post-industrial economy. Adult education and job training programs are critical elements in any investment strategy for California.
The state's public sector, like the economy, may also find that the increasingly Latino population brings mixed blessings. Higher wages and a more productive and affluent Latino population would reduce demands for some type of public services while increasing others. The higher proportion of families among Latinos will continue demands for schools, affordable housing and health care. The nature of these demands requires innovation and thoughtful responses to vexingly complex social problems, including increasing educational attainment among immigrants and their children, protecting the population against the costs of illness, and reducing the potential level of inter- and intra-group tension and conflicts.
The presence of a predominantly Latino student body in public schools raises important questions about what instruction methods and curriculum should be used to increase Latino educational attainment. Latino parents have been accused of not being interested or encouraging education. Our data suggests that Latino parents are extremely interested in the education of their children. They define the boundaries of education beyond those generally offered by public school instruction. For example, Latino parents express deep concern about the lack of moral education and discipline within the public school. It is precisely because of these concerns that Latino parents often sacrifice their limited household resources in order to send their children to parochial schools. The failure of schools to keep students interested in pursuing additional education desperately requires serious consideration.
A current problem that impacts disproportionately on low-income people is the lack of health insurance coverage and lack of access to medical care. Latinos are disproportionately affected by this crisis in California largely because they occupy lower-paying and lowest-level jobs in the economy. In addition, Latinos are more likely to work for small businesses and other industries (e.g., agriculture) that historically have not provided fringe benefits such as health insurance. This lack of coverage exposes many Latino families to the dual hazard illness poses: reduced health and financial ruin. Given that Latinos generally work at low wage jobs that do not provide health insurance and most will be unable to pay the high out-of-pocket costs of medical care in private hospitals, in particular, the demand on public hospitals and other medical care resources will continue to grow. Financially the existence of these public institutions are threatened and the quality of care often compromised because of the already overwhelming demand for care.
These demands will be felt unevenly across the state as the Latino population is increasingly concentrated in the larger metropolitan areas. Governance structures designed to serve California's past population are unable to handle a culturally diverse California and require modification in order to increase public participation. For example, a large proportion of children in the Los Angeles Unified School District are Latino but relatively few of their parents can vote for school boar representatives who reflect their hopes and concerns. Therefore, the children most affected by decisions about policy curriculum go largely unrepresented. This presents a new problem. The question of citizenship for school board elections was not an issue even 10 years ago when only 37% of Latinos were foreign born. Other immigrant groups will also lack representation for their educational concerns.
In our survey we find that Latinos express intense concerns and commitment to making California a better place to live and raise their families. Given the heterogeneous nature of this population, however, different segments identify different concerns as primary.
Despite broad consensus on many major issues, various segments differ on other points. Immigrants are more inclined to emphasize the economic opportunities and favor continued growth. Third-generation Latinos are more inclined to be interested in ethnic and racial diversity, living in mixed communities, and language pluralism.
The given some problems reflects this generational mix of California's Latino population. This mix will continue to change rapidly, during the next two decades as more of the Latino population are native born. Responses to concerns by public and private decisionmakers, likewise, requires flexibility. Administrators and policymakers must recognize the evolving concerns faced by the Latino community or face the inability to obtain an adequate base of support for new policies and programs.
Among the areas where Latinos have broad consensus about what is important, how well or badly problems are being handled, and how they might be solved are summarized below:
The underclass and cultural deficit paradigms often characterize poor populations as those that:
Clearly, as we have seen in previous chapters, the Latino population, while experiencing persistently low incomes, particularly among the immigrant segments, and limited educational achievement, does not fit this underclass profile. Recall that Latinos have among the highest rate of labor force participation of any group in California. Latinos form stable families and espouse "traditional" American values. Nor do Latinos condone anti-social behaviors but rather emphasize the social and moral aspects of individual development and conduct. Thus, initiatives are doomed to fail if they are based on mistaken notions about the characteristics of the Latino population. New frameworks are required to address the complex problem of persistent poverty among the Latino population. We believe that the initial building blocks for these new strategies are contained in the profile of the Latino population presented in this monograph.
