 |
 |
|
|
Latinos in Indiana:
Robert Aponte Statistical Brief No. 14 December 2001
The Julian Samora Research Institute is a unit of the Colleges of Social
Sciences and Agriculture & Natural Resources at Michigan State University.
Latinos in Indiana: Growth, Distribution, and
Implications The demographic characteristics of Indiana’s Latino (Hispanic)
population have not been documented in a number of years. In addition,
the two most recent and thorough analyses of Hispanics in the state were
based on the 1990 Census (Aponte 1999, Gannon, et. al., 1996). Since then,
this population has undergone dramatic growth and shifts in residential
patterning, owing largely to rapid in-migration. This is evident not only
from the partial release of Census 2000 data, but also from numerous reports
from around the state that bear witness to these changes. In addition,
there are solid indications that the lion’s share of the growth
occurred in the second half of the 1990’s. The following is a concise overview of those demographic characteristics
of Latinos in Indiana that can be documented at the present time. It derives
primarily from the preliminary release of Census 2000 data (USBC 2001).
A more complete representation must await the release of the detailed
returns from Census 2000. What’s more, the available data cannot
be adjusted for whatever undercounting has occurred. Still, even a cursory
treatment of the available data shows the dramatic nature of the transformation. Latinos have not comprised a significant share of Indiana’s population
until recent years, despite maintaining a presence in the state for most
of the 20th Century. They could be found in sizable numbers, for most
of this period, primarily in the northwest sector of the state. Their
long-standing presence in such areas as the Lake County cities of Gary,
East Chicago, and Hammond, can be traced to the pioneering settlements
of mostly Mexican-origin workers who were recruited by the areas’
steel mills in the World War I era (Lane and Escobar, 1987). A second
long-standing presence consists of migrant farmworkers, also primarily
of Mexican origin. However, as only temporary residents, they are often
overlooked in statistical reports. In addition, less than 10,000 currently
toil in Indiana annually and historical accounts suggest their numbers
could not have surpassed 25,000 (Barger and Reza, 1994; Valdes, 1991).
Nevertheless, sizable Latino settlements have been noted in areas of
the state outside of Lake County in recent decades. Indeed cities, such
as Fort Wayne, South Bend, and Indianapolis, witnessed settlements large
enough to sustain the emergence of Latino-oriented, community based organizations
by the 1970’s and 1980’s (Guthrie, et al., 1995; HASS Task
Force, 1979; MHRC, 1976). Many of the pioneering settlers in such places
were former migrant workers who “settled out” of the migrant
stream. That is, they left the migrant cycle and settled in cities or
towns, usually near their former places of employment. Despite this history, as recently as 1990, Indiana’s Latino population registered at less than 100,000 people. At the time, they accounted for some 1.8% of the state’s overall population. However, by the time of Census 2000, the group’s numbers had increased to nearly 215,000, and accounted for a full 3.5% of the state’s total. This extraordinary growth is graphically depicted in Figure 1. The data there are also categorized by the three national origins that contribute the largest shares to the overall Latino population, both nationally and within Indiana: Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban.
The data in Figure 1 show that whereas the state’s Latino population
has long been predominately of Mexican origin, the recent round of Latino
growth has strengthened that lead. In fact, the Mexican-origin contingent
of the population rose from 67.6% to 71.2% of the total Latino group during
the 1990’s. Likewise, the figures reveal that this contingent accounted
for virtually three-quarters of all Latino growth over that period. Indeed,
the Mexican origin group added more people [88,316] over the 1990’s
than they even had in place at the start of the decade [66,736]. Figures 2 and 3 provide data on the eight Indiana counties with the largest
number of Latinos in residence at the time of the 2000 Census. There are
a number of important points that can be extracted from analysis of the
data. First, whereas Lake County in the northwest sector of the state
continues to contain the largest number of Hispanics, it did not sustain
the largest such increase. Rather, that distinction goes to Marion County.
Lake County experienced the second largest increase, followed in order
by Elkhart, Allen, St. Joseph, Tippecanoe, Porter, and Kosciusko counties.
After Lake and Marion counties, these additional six counties are also
home to the highest number of Latinos in the same rank order. In many
cases, such as those of Marion, Elkhart, and Kosciusko Counties, the already
sizable populations tripled or quadrupled in size over the 1990’s.
One of the more striking effects of these dramatic changes is that while
Lake County accounted for 45.1% of the state’s Latinos in 1990,
it only accounted for some 27.6% of the total in 2000. Figure 4 shows the geographic distribution of Indiana’s 90-plus
counties with the top eight in Latino population ranks designated as such.
As alluded to above, rankings have changed somewhat from the 1990 ordering
(not shown here, see Aponte, 1999). Taken as a whole, the patterning seems
to reflect a tendency toward settlement in Marion, Tippecanoe, and the
state’s industrial belt counties along the northcentral and northwestern
parts of the state. This patterning warrants further research before a
full interpretation can be offered, but it suggests that the newcomers
are heading for urban areas and non-agricultural employment.
Nevertheless, we can see that these eight counties alone accounted for
nearly three-quarters (72%) of the overall Latino growth in the state.
One generalization that can be made from the patterns shown thus far is
that migration had to play a significant role in this growth. This is
clear because “natural increase” (an excess of births over
deaths) alone could not have produced such rapid growth. A second observation is that the Latino population is quickly shifting
away from the long-standing pattern of concentration in the northwest
sector. Clearly, a second major pole of growth has materialized around
Marion County, while additional areas are also experiencing significant
growth. Indeed, only three counties experienced declines in their Hispanic
populations, while 18 counties experienced growth of at least 1,000 persons,
and 47 counties registered between 100 and 1,000 additional persons in
their Latino communities. The remaining 24 counties also showed increases,
but of less than 100 persons each. Clearly then, the Latino presence is
rapidly spreading throughout the state. Figures 5 and 6 show Latino population trends among the top eight Indiana
cities in Hispanic population as of 2000. Not surprisingly, these particular
cities are all located in the Latino high growth counties. Still, there
are some clearly notable patterns in their growth that are not obvious
within the county data. First, Indianapolis is shown to have garnered
the most growth of all cities by far, rising from third place among cities
in Hispanic population in 1990, to first place in 2000. Its lead over
second place Hammond in the Census 2000 count is in excess of 13,000 persons.
But, while Hammond at least showed significant growth, other Lake County
cities experienced miniscule (East Chicago) or negative (Gary, not shown
because it fell to ninth place) growth. Finally, the growth shown for
Elkhart is nothing short of phenomenal. The comparatively small city began
the decade with less than 1,000 Hispanics (888), but ended it with nearly
8,000 (7,678) Latinos.
The fact that the gross trend for the state in Latino growth is very
similar to that for individual places, like Marion County, can be useful
for the purpose of making preliminary assessments about the overall Latino
population. Such similarities suggest that the characteristics of those
migrants contributing to growth in these places are also similar. The
fact that Marion County experienced the most growth among the state’s
counties is fortunate because we have recent survey findings on that area’s
Hispanic newcomers. The findings for Marion will almost certainly apply
to newly arriving Latinos elsewhere in the state. A survey conducted by United Way of Central Indiana (2000) provides important
information about the Latinos in the Marion County area. As suggested
above, because of the similarities in timing-of-arrival and national origins
between many of the Latinos surveyed there and Hispanic newcomers elsewhere
in the state, it is quite likely much of what we learn from the one will
apply to the other. When combined with the information shown here, the
survey’s findings suggest that state’s Latino newcomers are
predominately recent immigrants, overwhelmingly of Mexican-origin, hard-working
but relatively poor, and handicapped by limited English language proficiency. Figures 7 and 8 derive from the United Way Indianapolis Area Hispanic
Survey (UWCI 2000) fielded in January of 2000. This survey reached over
600 Indianapolis-area adult Latinos and was based on a sample derived
from various sources (e.g., phone records). In particular, there was a
concerted effort to “sign up” potential respondents by canvassing
various city areas known to contain large numbers of Latinos over several
days. While the resulting sample frame cannot truly be considered representative
of the entire metro area’s Latino population, it is likely that
it approaches that goal to a reasonable degree. In addition, the consistency
of the findings with what we have all observed in our communities (large
numbers of recently arriving Latinos with modest English skills, etc.)
heightens our confidence in the survey’s findings.
Figure 7 reveals the approximate time the respondents have resided in
the capitol city area by selected length-of-years categories. The results
shown are astounding. Fully half of all respondents are shown to have
lived in the area for only two years or less! The second largest contingent,
28% of the total, is shown to only have acquired between three and five
years of area residence. Hence, fully three-quarters of the group arrived
around mid-decade or later. This is consistent with numerous anecdotal
reports on the Latino population explosion around the state (Buchthal,
2001; Horne, 2000; Peck, 2001a, 2001b; Quinn, 2001). In addition, the
most resounding of the themes in this literature is the sudden and increasing
need for translation services and for bilingual instructors and programs
in English language instruction.
Figure 8 depicts nativity data on the survey’s respondents. The
results are quite remarkable. Nearly 90% of the respondents were born
outside of the United States. While the United Way survey did not collect
data on national-origin background, it is clear that the overwhelming
majority of the newcomers are Mexican heritage Latinos. By contrast, the
1990 Census returns indicated that only about 15% of the state’s
Mexican-origin Latinos were born in Mexico (Aponte, 1999). Hence, the
survey’s findings suggest that an incredibly strong immigrant presence
characterizes the state’s newest Latinos, in sharp contrast to their
counterparts of a decade earlier.
Figures 9 and 10 provide information on the survey respondents’
educational attainment and, within broad categories, their occupational
status. A full 60% of the respondents had attained less that 12 years
of formal schooling. Nearly as high a percentage (56%) of the employed
respondents worked at unskilled jobs. And while some 22% of the workers
are shown as employed in managerial or professional occupations, many
of the managerial positions were blue-collar ones or were within service
oriented establishments (e.g., plant foreman, fast food managerial, etc.).
Many of those jobs are not as lucrative as their categorical labeling
might imply.
It is important to stress that while the data in Figures 9 and 10 are
not cross-classified by the respondents’ duration of residence,
it is almost certain that the newer arrivals hold a disproportionate share
of the least lucrative jobs and are disproportionately represented among
the least educated respondents. There are some important additional findings from the survey that are
not shown in the charts here. First, most Latinos either want to stay
in Indiana, or are unsure about staying; only about one-quarter conceive
of their residency here as temporary. Moreover, only the most recent arrivals
are unlikely to be sure about staying or believe they will move on. Most
of the respondents who have lived in the state for even a few years want
to stay. Indeed, many came to join family. Most of the respondents, however, came for work, and they are hard workers.
For example, some 40% of the households reported having three or more
employed adults, while one-quarter had at least one worker holding at
least two jobs. Overall, less than 2% of the group’s workers were
unemployed. However, their wages are undoubtedly quite low; the median
household income among those surveyed was between $10,000 and $20,000.
Further, over one-third of the respondents lived in “shared”
quarters and over 90% were renters. High proportions also had limited
English-speaking skills, but most were seeking or taking ESL (English
as a second language) training. It is apparent from the data presented that the Latino population in
Indiana has undergone sudden and drastic change in the past decade. Today
the group is primarily Mexican in origin, most are first-generation immigrants,
and they can be found throughout the state to a greater degree than previously.
While many of them are handicapped by a lack of English proficiency, low
income, and little formal education, they are nevertheless highly work-oriented,
eager to learn the language, and striving to achieve self-sufficiency
through work, study, and determination. References Aponte, Robert. 1999. “Latinos in Indiana: On the Throes of Growth.” Statistical Brief No.11, Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State University. Barger, W.K. and Ernetso M. Reza. 1994. The Farm Labor Movement in the Midwest. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. Gannon, Fr. Thomas S.J., Clifford Grammich, and Fr. Steven Hurd S.J. 1996. On Many Edges: The Hispanic Population of Indiana. Heartland Center Report. Hammond, Ind.: The Heartland Center. Guthrie, Charles, Dan Briere, and Mary Moore. 1995. The Indianapolis Hispanic Community. University of Indianapolis Press. Horne, Terry. 2000. “The Golden Door (La Puerta Donada).” Multi-part series on Mexican Immigration to Indiana. The Indianapolis Star. April. HASS Task Force (Hispanic and Spanish Speaking Task Force). 1979. “Hispanic and Spanish Speaking Needs Report.” United Way, So. Bend, Ind. Lane, James B., and Edward J. Escobar (eds). 1987. Forging A Community: The Latino Experience in Northwest Indiana 1919-1975. Chicago: Cattails Press. MSRC (Metropolitan Human Relations Commission). 1976. Survey of the Spanish Speaking People of Fort Wayne. Metropolitan Human Relations Commission, Fort Wayne, Ind. Quinn, Mike. 2001. “The Changing Face of Tomorrow’s Hoosiers.” Actionlines 4 (2): 9. Peck, Vivienne. 2001a. “Logansport Works With Community Leaders, Employers, for Successful Integration.” Actionlines 4 (2): 10-12. ____. 2001b. “Huntingburg, Jasper Join Forces for Services Maximize Similarities.” Actionlines 4 (5): 24-25 Valdes, Dennis Nodin. 1991. AL NORTE: Agricultural Workers in the Great Lakes Region. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. USBC (United States Bureau of the Census). 2001. Census 2000. Various, Internet Access: http://www.census.gov/index.html UWCI (United Way of Central Indiana). 2000. The Indianapolis Hispanic Study. Indianapolis, Ind.: United Way/Community Service Council. www.uwci.org |
|
|
|
For more information, contact: |
