 |
|
|
|
by Rudy Hernández, Ph.D. Candidate and Marcelo Siles, Ph.D. and Refugio I. Rochín, Ph.D. June 2001 About the Authors: Rudy G. Hernandez was born and raised in Detroit, Mich., where he completed his undergraduate studies at Wayne State University. Currently, he is a Ph.D. Candidate in MSU's Department of Sociology. His focus of study is on Latino youth and family issues. Professionally, he has worked several years with youth throughout Michigan and is currently the Director for Diversity in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at MSU. Dr. Refugio I. Rochín, the Julian Samora Research Institute's Permanent Director from 1994-1998, continued his legacy in 1998 by becoming the first Director of the Smithsonian Institute's Center for Latino Initiatives in Washington, D.C. At Michigan State University, he was Professor of Agricultural Economics and Sociology and at the University of California, Davis, he was Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics and Chicano Studies. His research interests include immigration/migration issues, farmworkers, and rural populations. Dr. Rochín received his M.A. in Communication, and his Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics from MSU. Dr. Marcelo Siles is Co-Director of MSU's Social Capital Initiative
and a former Research Associate at the Julian Samora Research Institute.
He holds a Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics from MSU with majors in Finance
and International Development. His research interest focuses on the role
of social capital in financial markets. At JSRI, he was engaged in research
projects under the community development and demographic profiles programs.
Latino Youth: Converting Challenges to Opportunities Latino youth face challenges which have heretofore been ignored. Their issues transcend the usual minority problems of adolescence, family crisis, education, poverty, promiscuity, and drugs. Their challenges extend to being part of an increasingly diverse, fast growing population that is expanding across the United States. Their challenges emanate in part from being perceived and treated as foreign-born immigrants in a society with growing xenophobia. Their challenges are also exacerbated by widespread ignorance about who they are and general confusion with identity in terms of labels that are prescribed and utilized: Hispanic, Latino, Chicano, Boricua, raza, etc. These labels of identity are also interspersed with stereotypical depictions of Latino youth as gang-bangers, graffiti artists, and (oddly enough) migrant children who work the fields of agriculture. To a degree these labels describe the predicament of Latino youth. They are heterogeneous with many identities, but mostly covered under the rubric of "Hispanic." They are growing so quickly that Latinos themselves are often not connected to each other by common themes and issues. Yet, Latino youth are being challenged in new and important ways. They are at major "crossroads" of mainstream society, facing new roles as future leaders and workers (Duany & Pittman, 1990). Latino youth will soon be in a new century where they will be expected to convert their challenges into opportunities. With several challenges at stake, it is increasingly imperative to deepen our understanding of Latino youth. In this chapter, we concentrate on the following: (1) An assessment of the demographic transformation which highlights
the importance of studying the Latino population in general. We also discuss the reasons why national policies like immigration and welfare reform heighten awareness of Latinos. Finally, we examine some troubling socio-economic indicators that challenge Latinos as a whole, such as problems with low income, education, unemployment, deviance, juvenile crime, etc. The facts before us reveal serious challenges ahead for Latino youth. Latino youth are not achieving the type of education that prepares them for better paying, high skill, professional jobs. They are facing problems of poverty, family dysfunction, and deviant behavior, at least on par with other ethnic groups or even to a greater degree. Despite these concerns, most Latino youth possess the skills ideally suited for a global world, namely the skills of being bilingual, multicultural, and acutely aware of social changes within local communities. Our intent is not to ignore these positive facts that are shared by the majority of Latino youth. They represent a critical part of this nation's future leaders and workers and are increasingly needed by an aging population in a global world of more trade and international competition. The Changing Demography Several reports have identified the "changing demography" in the United States as the most important reason for studying Latinos. According to Chapa and Valencia (1993, p. 167), "Latino population growth is the future." Similarly, Aponte and Siles (Nov. 1994, p. 1) note that: "…few societal changes in sight match the coming demographic shift, commonly known as 'the Browning of America.'" And more recently, del Pinal and Singer (Oct. 1997) write: "Next to diversity, rapid growth is the most extraordinary aspect of the U.S. Hispanic population." Between 1980 and 1990 the total U.S. population grew by 9% to about 249 million people; the Hispanic population grew by 53% from 14.6 million in 1980 to 22.4 million in 1990. In 1980, the Hispanic population was a little less than 5% of the U.S. population; by 1990, the Hispanic population had risen to 9%. The Census Bureau now places the Hispanic population at about 28 million, roughly 11% of the nation's population (CPS P25-1130,1995). In less than five years, domestic Latinos increased by over 5 million, a rate of 27% (del Pinal and Singer, 1997, p.15). If Latinos continue to increase at this rate, the number of Latinos will equal or surpass the number of African Americans by the year 2010, becoming U.S. largest minority population (Aponte and Siles, 1997; Hodgkinson and Hamilton Outtz, 1996).
By the year 2050, Latinos could reach 130 million in number, constituting 22-24% of the total U.S. population (del Pinal and Singer p.15). Between now and then, Hispanics "are projected to furnish more than half of the national population growth" (del Pinal and Singer, 1997, p.15). Thus, within two generations, non-Hispanic Whites will no longer be a majority in America and Hispanics will take a more critical role. Of the 27 million Hispanics estimated for 1994, Mexican Americans accounted for the overwhelming majority, numbering over 17 million (64%). South and Central Americans accounted for 3.7 million (14%), Puerto Ricans (not including Islanders) 2.8 million (10%), other Hispanics 1.9 million (7%), and Cuban Americans 1.1 million (4%) of the population (NAHP, CPR, 1995). Driving Forces: Immigration and Fertility Immigration and relatively high fertility rates have fueled the rapid growth of American Hispanics. Between 1980 and 1990, approximately half of the Latino growth was due to births to Latinos living in the United States and the other half was due to foreign immigration. Right now, immigration contributes the lion's share of Hispanic increase. According to del Pinal and Singer, In the 1990's, about two-thirds of U.S. residents who identified themselves as Hispanics or Latinos were immigrants or the children of immigrants (Oct. 1997, p.2). Rumbaut (1996, p.3) notes that Latin America and the Caribbean alone contributed nearly 43% (8.4 million) of the foreign-born persons in the United States in 1990 and that fully half of them came during the 1980's (in Rochín (ed), 1996). Rumbaut also notes that only Mexico, Argentina, and Colombia have larger Spanish-origin populations than the United States (Rumbaut, 1996, p.1). Mexico, because of its history and proximity to the United States, is the most significant contributor of foreign-born Latinos in the U.S., but California receives about half of the immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean, followed by Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois. These are also the states with the nation's largest concentrations of Hispanics. In 1990, California had 7.7 million Hispanics (26% of the state's population), Texas had 4.3 million Hispanics (26%), New York had 2.2 million (12%), Florida 1.6 million (12%), and Illinois almost one million (8%). Altogether, these five states held nearly 75% of the nation's total Latino population (see Rumbaut in Rochín, 1996, Table 1., p. 2). Historic Origins Another force behind the current pattern of immigration and settlement of Latinos is their historic origin. Latinos have been part of the American fabric for centuries, preceding the explorers from England, France, and other parts of Europe by many decades. One should not forget that Christopher Columbus was sponsored by Spanish royalty and what followed him were waves of Spanish explorers who ventured into many parts of the United States, opening the regions of Florida, Louisiana, Kansas, New Mexico, California, etc. Thus, the history and precedent of the early españoles have given cause for Latinos to make parts of the U.S. their permanent homes. Recent history has also affected new patterns of Latino settlement and growth along the Eastern seaboard and into the middle states where Latinos have come in droves to work in agriculture, services, and construction (e.g., railways and buildings). There are very few states where Latinos have not significantly increased their presence, found jobs, and settled. As a result of more recent histories, Hispanics have laid "claims" to land that was once Spanish. Their historical connections to the United States include, for example, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the Spanish-America War, and the Treaty of 1898, (when Spain ceded Puerto Rico and other countries to the United States), the Mexican Revolution and the invasion of American troops into Mexico (the Bracero Period roughly 1942-64), Fidel Castro, the Bay of Pigs, and the subsequent influx of Cuban Marielitos and balseros (boat people). There is much more to discern from the histories of different Latino groups, suffice it to say that the backgrounds of Latinos are varied and unique to each group. Puerto Ricans, for example, are U.S. citizens by virtue the treaty of the Spanish-America War of 1898. Today, Puerto Ricans encounter no legal barriers to migration to the mainland. Their own perceptions as Americans are different from the perceptions of other Latinos in the U.S. Mexicans have had a long-standing history with the United States. Before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848, Mexico owned nearly one-third the territory of the United States. That territory is called the Southwest, where Latinos have settled in large numbers. However, today's Mexican immigrant faces many barriers to entering the U.S., much greater than at the turn of the century when the border was almost an open frontier. For Mexicans who entered the U.S. from 1901 to 1965, legal impediments to entry were rudimentary. Mexicans were actually recruited to work the farms and fields of America (so-called Braceros) between 1942 and 1965. After 1965, U.S. barriers to Mexican immigration rose much higher and changed the status of Mexicans in the United States to "illegal alien." Thus, Mexicans who entered the U.S. after 1965 tend to experience reaction against total assimilation than a desire to become more Americanized. Race and Mestizaje Among Latinos A distinctive and interesting trait of Hispanics is in fact related
to their historic origins. They are, for the most part, a mixture of bloods
between Native Americans and immigrants from Europe, especially from Spain.
Latinos include mixed-blood African descendants whose ancestors were slaves
on the sugar plantations of Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Dominican
Republic; descendants of Spaniards whose families intermarried with American
Indians; Chinese descendants whose forebears went to Cuba and Central
America as contract laborers, and full-blooded "Native-American"
Latinos, such as the "Mixtecos" of Mexico who speak Spanish
as a second language. Such ethnic differences can affect the receptiveness
of distinct groups of Latinos to programs for Asians or Blacks, for example. Two features of the intermarriage of Hispanics are important to their place in U.S. society. First, they are much more likely than African Americans to marry outside their race/ethnic group, suggesting that Hispanics are more assimilated into U.S. mainstream society. Second, Hispanics are more likely to marry a non-Hispanic than someone from another Latino group. This underscores the distinct identity of each Hispanic ethnic group (p. 28). Being mestizo does not mean that Latinos ignore the question of race or racism, but suggests that race is rarely dichotomized (as it is in the U.S.). Rather, race exists on a continuum. Thus, non-Latinos should not expect Hispanics and Latinos to willingly categorize themselves by race (i.e., Black, White, Asian,), as is expected where color/race is used to identify ethnic groups. On the other hand, Latinos may refer themselves and others by color or physical features, such as güero and blanco (terms for light skin), or moreno, prieto, and negro (terms for dark skin). Among Mexican-origin Latinos, you hear people called by nicknames like flaco (skinny), gordo (fat), chato (short), peludo (bald), barbudo (bearded), etc. These are usually nicknames of endearment, rather than terms of denigration, and are frequently used as interpersonal identifiers. In addition, given the intermarriage of Latinos, they can have a variety of last names which come from many parts of the world. Latinos may be Hernández or Martinez, but they can also be Rosenberg or Wong. Names are not a critical issue either among Latinos. Instead, Latinos develop a sense of themselves according to other traits or interests that are discussed later in this chapter. Given the multiple generations of Latinos in America, not all speak Spanish and not all are Catholic, or even religious for that matter. Not all are fully assimilated or even acculturated to the degree that they are all fluent in English and prefer to be called "American." Nonetheless their diversity is often lost in the popular images of Latinos, and consequently, Latinos are mistakenly treated as a homogeneous group. Taking Stock of Latino Youth Beyond changing demographics, there are several challenges that Latino youth struggle to overcome. Today's Latino youth, for example, will be most affected by the aging of the non-Latino population. In the year 2000, Latino youth will have to face the so-called "burden of support" in America. Consider the following for example: in 1990, 30 million people were elderly (65 or over). By the year 2000, that number will increase to 35 million and by 2010 it will be approximately 40 million. Looking further out to 2030, when today's Latino youth will be in their 40's and 50's, they will likely be the majority of the labor force while all of the retired will be consist primarily of White, non-Hispanic and Black senior citizens, amounting to about 65 million persons over the age of 65. In short, the burden of support relates to who will work and who will support the retired workers. Also consider the following: in 1950, 17 people were at work for every retired person. Today the number has dropped to roughly three active workers for every retired person. By the year 2000 or a little later, we could be looking at only 2.5 workers per retiree. By 2030, we could easily expect to have two workers per retiree, and at least one of those workers will be a Latino.
The burden of supporting these future generations may rest primarily on a "minority-status" Latino population, which will certainly be smaller in relation to the White population that it supports. It is very conceivable that today's Latino youth will be expected to carry a burden of support of one Latino worker for every two retired people. For some time, the White (non-Hispanic) birth rate has been falling to a point where it is now below the zero population growth level. In 1990, non-Hispanic Whites had a fertility rate (live births per 1,000 women) of 12.9, which was less than half that of the fertility rate for Hispanics (26.0). The African American birth rate has also gone down and it appears to be approaching the White birth rate. The Asian American birth rate is in between the rates for African Americans and Latinos. Due to these differences alone, the White (non-Latino) and African American fractions of the population are shrinking relative to the Latinos (and Asian Americans) who are growing in absolute terms. The different age structures are also apparent in the "population pyramids" of del Pinal and Singer (1997, p. 16). Each of the two pyramids is graphed the same way. On the horizontal access is the percentage of "male" and "female" of the population in question. On the vertical access is the number of males and females of particular age groups. The pyramid for the non-Hispanic group in 1990 has a relatively narrow base, tapered inward at the bottom for the population less than 40 years of age. This shape shows that non-Hispanics are not sustaining their numbers by maintaining previous rates of fertility. It is also evident that the bulk of the non-Hispanic group is over 40 years of age and is increasing its share of the "aged" population much more quickly than the Hispanic population. In comparison, the pyramid for the Hispanic group in 1990 widens at the base, showing that Latinos have more children in their pipeline for future generations, relative to the aging groups of Latinos, see Figures 1 and 2. It is reasonable to predict that the pyramids for Hispanics and non-Hispanics will project in different ways. The Latino youth group will grow disproportionately larger over time while the non-Hispanic youth group, except for Asian-America youth, will shrink steadily in number. A closer look at the base of the pyramid shows the potential stock of "human capital." In 1990, approximately 8.5 million Latinos were under the age of 20. More importantly, there has been a clear-cut increase in the rise of Latino youth as indicated in Table 8. Notice, for example, how the group of Latinos under 5 years of age is much larger than the older age groups. If this growing number of Latinos becomes educated and prepared for the new types of employment of the market, then America would be in a strong economic position. These data suggest that Latino youth may be as important to the future of the majority population as they are to the future of Latinos themselves.
Latino Concentration According to the latest Census Data, Latino youth have recently surpassed Black youth and are now the largest minority group in the U.S. However, just on the basis of fertility rates alone, Latino youth will assuredly become the majority population in certain states like California, Texas, and Illinois. Latinos will constitute the larger share of school-aged children in many schools. In California, the state's education leaders already refer to the next decade of Latinos as "Tidal Wave II." Latino youth will be entering the labor market at increasing rates and it will not be certain if they will have a preferred place in the better paying occupations. Studies have shown that more problems than opportunities exist in areas where Latino concentration rises. Latino youth are caught in situations of more social conflict and tensions. However, Latino youth can also be in a position to take more active roles as leaders and workers. Changing demographics will certainly produce a social revolution wherein secular traditions of doing business, forming alliances, defining family and community, and generating public choices and policies will be transformed. Thus, the coming millennium poses a critical juncture for Latino youth to convert the current challenges into future opportunities. Given these challenges, should society in general want to know if Latino youth will be prepared for the opportunities emerging with such demographical changes? Will Latino youth be satisfied members of communities and be able to perform the kinds of jobs the United States needs most? Will their social and political relationships with non-Hispanics be harmonious and productive? Now that Latino youth, for example, have become the nation's largest minority population in the United States, will the balance of attention shift primarily to them and with what status? Defining and Measuring Latino Youth Several studies of Latinos conclude that Hispanic Americans are extremely difficult to define. Most academics concur that Hispanic Americans are so diverse that they can not be categorized into a homogeneous group. They all point to the profusion of many different labels to identify and account for Latinos. How then do we count and assess the ethnic identity of Latinos? Since 1980, the term "Hispanic" has been used frequently in Census counts, government programs, and projects. But, the term is not uniformly accepted by all Latinos. The vast majority of Latinos generally identify themselves in relation to the country from which they or their ancestors originate, such as Chicano (U.S. Southwest), Cuban American, Mexican American, Dominicano, Boricua (the indigenous name of Puerto Rico), etc. According to some researchers, like the authors of this publication, the term Latino or Chicano has been more commonly expressed in California, but is growing in popularity in the Midwest as migration across the U.S. increases. In the Southwestern and Midwestern states, the term "La Raza" is generally used among Latinos as a way to refer to themselves as people related by blood ties or strong bonds; this is particularly so among Mexican Americans. According to Anzaldua (1997), the term "Raza" is attributable to Jose Vasconselos, the Mexican philosopher who conceived "una Raza mestiza, una mezcla de razas afines, una raza de color - la primera raza sinthesis del globo"1: the cosmic race. (p. 240) The term "Latino" appears to be more popular in areas with the greatest concentrations of Mexican Americans and Mexicans. In addition, according to del Pinal and Singer (1997), persons who identify themselves as Latinos tend to be more involved than self-identified Hispanics in enhancing political rights and opportunities of their group, but the term is not preferred by most Hispanics (p. 5). As reported by Del Pinal and Singer (1996): A 1995 survey by the Census Bureau2 found that 58% of persons of Hispanic/Latino background preferred the term "Hispanic"; only 12% favored Latino (p. 5). The Meaning of Hispanic and Issues of Hispanic Identity In 1980 and 1990, the U.S. Census counted respondents of any race as Hispanics if they identified themselves as part of any of the following groups: Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano, Puerto Rican, Nuyurican (of New York), Hispano (of Colorado and New Mexico), Tejano (of Texas), Cuban, South and/or Central-America. In other words, individuals who self-identified as being of Latin American origin, including persons from Spanish-speaking countries of the Caribbean or from Spain, would be counted as Hispanics. That is, unless Americans self-identify as Spanish origin from the aforementioned groups, they would not be considered Hispanic by the Census Bureau. There are several problems with the concept and measure of "Hispanics" in the United States. For example, Earl Shorris' (1992) first line in his magnus opus entitled: Latinos: A Biography of the People, notes that: Latinos, who will soon be the largest group of minorities in the United States, are not one nationality, one culture, but many (p. xiii). Shorris goes on with several biographical sketches to prove the point of great diversity and great divisions between Latinos. Also, as noted by Geoffrey Fox (1996): "Hispanics" don't have a common biological descent. "Hispanics," the Census Bureau reminds us… can also be of any religion and any citizenship status, from undocumented to U.S. citizen by birth, and may have any of over twenty distinct national histories… they do not even all share the first language… Others whose ancestors may never have really mastered Spanish but who had Spanish surnames imposed on them by their conquerors - Mayans, Quechuas, Filipinos, and so on - are often given, and sometimes willingly assume, the label "Hispanic" (p. 3). In addition, according to Massey (Nov. 1993): In theory, Hispanics include all those who trace their origins to a region originally colonized by Spain. It subsumes Argentines whose grandparents migrated from Italy to Buenos Aires at the turn of the century, the Chinese whose forebearers were brought to Cuba as contract laborers, Amerindians whose progenitors entered the Amazon 30,000 years ago, Africans whose ancestors were imported to work as slaves on the sugar plantations of Puerto Rico, Spaniards whose families colonized Mexico, and mestizos who trace their lineage to the coerced union of Amerindian women and Spanish men (p. 453). But Fox (1996) suggests these issues of identity may not dissuade Latinos from adopting the concept of "Hispanic." He argues that more and more Latinos relate to the idea of "Hispanicity," partially due to discrimination: The Hispanic nation is American not only because the ancestors of many of its members were established here before there was a United States. It is American because the whole idea of "Hispanicness" or of a "Latino community" is a home-grown response to problems of discrimination. It is not an ethnic identity that Spanish-speaking people bring with them when they arrive but something they create in response to conditions here in this country and is shaped by U.S. institutions ranging from the structure of the telecommunications industry to the practices of art galleries and museums (p. 239). According to Bean and Tienda (1987), Hispanic identity is and will always be a personal matter, formulated by local conditions where ethnicity is "socially produced." Specifically, they assert that: …ethnicity is predominantly a social phenomenon organized around outwardly visible physical and cultural differences between two or more groups… That many Hispanic immigrants and their descendants have yet to assimilate culturally or socially and occupy lower socio-economic positions raises the possibility that a greater congruence of ethnic distinctiveness and socioeconomic position may characterize their experience (p. 11). The Conditions That Unify Latinos Hispanic Americans are unifying in distinct and discernible ways because of the growth of Latino culture, according to Fox (1996). To wit: Only in recent years have great numbers of Hispanics begun to consider themselves as related within a single culture. Hispanics are redefining their own images and agendas, shaping a population, and paving wider pathways to power. They are changing both themselves and the culture, government, and urban habits of the communities around them (quote from book jacket). Of course, Fox's assertion still begs the question: What draws Latinos together? What are the conditions under which Latinos unify? And for Latino youth, are they even interested in ultimately choosing one label that becomes a marker of pan-ethnic self-identity? Although Latinos are not all alike and do not comprise a single, monolithic community in the United States, there are many situations when Latinos rally together. Just in the 90's alone, Hispanics were brought to the forefront of national interest with ballot initiatives in California, Texas, and other states against: bilingual (English-Spanish) education; affirmative action; recognition of Hispanic leaders such as the renaming of streets, border crossers from Mexico, and legal and undocumentation. The availability of more written works on Latinos by Latino authors, Spanish language materials, bilingual programs, and Spanish heritage music, arts, etc. have begun to generate a Latino call to a common cause. Other factors for unification are issues of family (familia), immigration, work ethic, and community (la comunidad). In most studies of Latinos, only a few address the unifying issues of Latinos. There is something to be said about recent issues being published by the press, especially in the decade of the 1990's. Our assessment to date includes the following causes for unity among Latinos: (1) Spanish Language versus English-Only The Spanish language is a common interest of the Latino population. Attacks against bilingual education have tended to harness Latinos together to defend Spanish teaching and Spanish materials in public places. This is supported by the fact that about 80% of Hispanics (ages 5 and older) speak Spanish at home. Nearly 40% reported that they did not speak English well or at all, the remaining 60% spoke English, and approximately 10% spoke only English at home (1990 Census of Population data). Thus, Spanish language plays an important role in mediating diversity among Hispanics. The adherence to Spanish does not include resistance to learning English or working hard in the American economy. As highlighted in Latino Voices, a recent book by Latino scholars (Westview Press, 1992), Latinos prefer reading and watching news in the English media, although those who do not speak English still need Spanish news. Nearly all studies about language show that Latinos avow to learn English. They see English as the primary way to get ahead in the United States today. Unlike proponents for English-only, Latinos discard the supposition that English acquisition should constitute a rejection of Spanish language and Latino culture. English and Spanish are not treated as mutually exclusive alternatives among Latinos as a whole. Moreover, the experience of most Latinos is that a lack of English does not necessarily reduce employability. Researchers have found that English language proficiency is not related to the likelihood of employment among Hispanics of all national origin groups (Massey, Nov. 1993, p. 464). (2) Family Values and Structures Another common theme among Latinos pertains to the values they attach to family or La Familia. The subject of recent movies, the notion of a common interest in La Familia is not always seen in a positive light. While strong Hispanic family values lead to what is perhaps the world's most humane treatment of the aged by subsequent generations, according to Harrison (1992): The radius of trust and confidence ends with the family, and that means that the sense of community ends with the family. It leads to nepotism, corruption (p.34). We do not agree with this blanket description of Latino families. Our understanding of Latino heterogeneity, alone should lead readers to discount Harrison's general depiction of Latinos. Nonetheless, psychologists, social scientists, and some anthropologists describe Latinos as imparting certain family values with various shades of adherence. The most commonly ascribed traits of Latinos as compared to non-Latino Whites are that Latinos are relatively more: (a) allocentric, group-oriented and less individualistic and competitive than non-Latino Whites; (b) sympathetic, congenial, relatively respectful of the needs and behaviors of others; (c) familistic, showing a relatively strong attachment to and solidarity to extended families; and (d) socially close, liking personal associations and close distance in conversation.
In addition to these traits, we also add that Latinos have in common a unique form of "trust," or confianza, between each other and with regard to non-Latinos. To a certain degree, Latinos are "cooperative soldiers," joining common causes like marches for the United Farmworkers or protests against discrimination. Latinos tend to relate to several incidences of cooperation and trust. Within the Latino community, building and maintaining relationships is not only pinnacle, but a source of individual and familial support, trust, and cooperation. This sense of "trust/cooperation," however, is not always understood or appreciated by non-Latino Whites. So when the thin line of "trust" is broken between Latinos and non-Latinos, the result is a concomitant rise in suspicion and non-cooperation. All it takes is a lie or a sense of distrust to lose commitment and interest among Latinos to work with non-Latino groups. Although the degree of such cooperation, or confianza, may vary widely among Hispanics themselves, knowledge that such feelings exist in general should be factored into work of anti-poverty agents who work with Latino poor. (3) Common Interests in Immigrant Rights Immigrant status and questions of immigration are sensitive matters among Latinos. Immigrant rights also connect Latinos to common causes concerning police actions and protective labor laws. Let us highlight some particular facts about immigrants that draw common interest among Latinos. Despite the fact that immigration has loomed in importance in this decade, only a small percentage of Latinos, albeit a significant fraction, are directly affected by immigrant status. That is, only 36% of all Latinos (as of the 1990 Census) were born outside the U.S. or its territories. That means that the majority of Latinos are native-born or U.S. citizens by right of birth. So of the 29 million Hispanics in the United States today, only about 9 million are foreign-born. Of those, approximately 30% are naturalized U.S. citizens. Altogether, when we talk about Latinos as an immigrant population, we should not lose sight of the fact that about 75% out of the total of 29 million are U.S. citizens. Moreover, of the Latino foreign-born population who are not yet naturalized citizens, the overwhelming majority are legal residents, living and working in the United States as legitimate tax payers. For the largest group of Latinos (Mexican Americans), who currently bear the brunt of anti-immigrant bashing in California, only about 33% of them (out of 14 million) were born in Mexico, the rest, (67%) were born in the United States. Nonetheless, almost all Latinos have relatives in Latin America. They are connected to Latin America by language, culture, and family ties. Such connections have grown in recent years with the opening of trade (e.g. NAFTA) and travel between nations. These connections have also strengthened because of music, literature, arts, and global communication networks which allow Latin American programs to be seen readily in the U.S. Hence for Latinos, actions against Latino immigrants are taken as actions against Latinos across the U.S. It is no wonder, then, that attacks by non-Latinos on Mexican immigrants, for example, and related measures for English-only documents are rallying cries for most Latinos. Instead of backing down in the face of anti-immigrant issues, in particular California's Proposition 187, Latinos are registering to vote in record numbers, applying for U.S. citizenship, and reinforcing their interests in bilingual education, multiculturalism, reform of school curriculum, etc. Thus, the attempts of non-Latinos to force Latinos to assimilate the Anglo way are being met with resistance (Garcia, Rochín, 1996). (4) Common Socio-Economic Indicators The poverty rate among Latinos is high, approximating the poverty level among African Americans. The poverty rate among female-headed Latino households is also critical with almost 50% below the poverty line. The number of female-headed households in poverty grew more among Latinos than among non-Latinos; although, the largest share in Latino poverty can be attributed to married couples. The poverty rate of Latino married-couple families was 18.5% in 1992, which was six percentage points higher than in 1979. Moreover, Latino married couples accounted for 49% of the total growth in the number of poor Latino families during the 1980's, growing from 298,000 impoverished couples in 1979 to 680,000 in 1992. There are higher incidences of Latino youth living in poverty. In 1979, 21.3% of Hispanic families were living in poverty. When considering only families with children under the age of 18, the poverty rate for Hispanic families increased to 25.2%, compared to 9.4% for White families in the same group. Most disparaging is that 56.3% of Hispanic female-headed families, with children under the age of 18, lived in poverty. This figure compares to 32.1% for Whites and 52.7% for Blacks. (Table 10)
In this decade, Latino poverty cannot be separated from immigrant status because many foreign-born Latinos are recent arrivals. They carry the burden of underemployment and unemployment and have limited education and English language fluency. Newly arrived immigrants from Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic are invariably poor and less educated. They bring with them a big heart for work, but also a difficult set of socio-economic traits that limit their occupation. (5) Work Ethic and Labor Force Participation A fundamental trait of Latinos has to do with "work ethic." With few exceptions, Latinos are the most active participants in the American labor market, beginning employment at an early age and working into retirement. While studies of labor force participation show a general trend toward declining rates of people at work or looking for work, Latino men, (especially Mexican men) consistently present a higher rate of labor force participation than the non-Latino population in general. Among Latinos, there is a work ethic that is passed down from generation to generation, immigrant or not. In 1980, Hispanic males, ages 16 to 19, participated in America's workforce at a rate of 48.3%, which trailed the national average (for this age group) by 1.6%. White, Black, and Asian-America males of the same age group participated at 53.2%, 33.0%, and 38.4%, respectively. The same year, 38.7 % of Hispanic females, (ages 16 to 19) were in the workforce, compared to 48.8% of White females, 29.8% of Black females, and 39.0% of Asian-American females. Ten years later, the rate of employment for this same age group of Hispanic males (16 to 19 years of age) rose to 50.1%, surpassing the national average of 49.5%. They were second, in terms of participation, only slightly behind White males, whose percentage was recorded as 52.6%, but they far exceeded Black males (36.7%) and Asian-American males (35.6%). The year 1990 also saw a rise in the labor force participation rate for Hispanic females (16 to 19 years of age). Although their rate measured 42.1%, it was still lagging behind the rate reported for White females (52.5%), but surpassed that of Black females (38.3%) and Asian-American females (36.0%, Table 11).
Unfortunately, as indicated above, the foreign-born Latino also spends a great deal of time unemployed and looking for work. That is due in part to the precarious nature of their employment in industries, that provide few worker protections or fringe benefits of employment and health insurance. Latino males (Latinos) continue to work mainly as laborers, fabricators, and operators. Latino females (Latinas) continue to work mainly in sales, secretarial, and clerical jobs. Unemployment rates remain consistently higher for Latinos than for their non-Latino counterparts, usually 1.5 times higher. With such occupational conditions, it is no wonder that the median earnings for year-round, full-time Latinos were about 63% that of non-Latino White males in 1992 ($20,054 to $31,765), while the median earnings of Latinas were about 78% that of non-Latino White females ($17,124 to $21,930). Two segments of the American workforce, which are largely disregarded, but oftentimes play an integral economic role in Latino communities, are the unlicensed vendor and the unskilled pieceworker. Combined, these factors relate to two conflicting characteristics of
Latinos. One is that Latinos work hard, but do not earn enough to escape
poverty. The second is that Latinos are concentrated in low-wage jobs
with few fringe benefits or opportunities for employment security and
upward mobility. In either case, Latinos do not receive much recognition
for their work or adequate attention to their work-related poverty. They
are deprived of the programs and policies to relieve Latino poor. How Latino Youth See the Future What are the chances that Latinos will overcome poverty and benefit from their growing numbers? One answer depends on their sense of identity and willingness to align themselves with common issues and concerns.
Recently, while delivering a stirring university graduation speech, a Chicano student activist proudly proclaimed that he owed all his academic success to his jefe (literally meaning "boss" or "chief," but commonly used by Chicanos as a term of endearment for their father). This young man proudly boasted that his father did not finish high school and could barely read English. He never helped him with his homework and he never even went to school to intercede for him when there was a problem. But, he said, he owed everything to him for teaching him how to get up in the morning. He owed his father for teaching him a work ethic. He went on to describe how his father told him that education is the key to upward mobility in this country, and the best way to really understand this concept is not to be educated. In a society where the pool of jobs which requiring little or no post-secondary education evaporates, this young man's father's advice is wise, indeed. The Rand Report on Latino Education (1995) estimated that Hispanic men with a bachelor's degree enjoyed a $500,000 lifetime premium over Hispanic men with a high school diploma, and $400,000 over Hispanic women. Furthermore, Hispanics with professional degrees increase their life earnings by over 200%, or $1.7 million (Sorensen, Brewer, Carroll, and Bryton, 1995). These impressive projections, notwithstanding the towering high school dropout rates coupled with very low post-secondary participation rates, guarantee that the fastest growing segment of our population will also be the fastest growing pool of low-skilled laborers. The most interesting characteristic exhibited by these figures is that they reveal a noticeable gap existing between the rates shown for Latinos and Latinas, and not that they show signs of sporadic disparity drawn along racial/ethnic lines. Latest figures show that at the national level, the Latino purchasing power is equal to $350 billion per year and growing at an annual rate close to 8%. The big Latino markets are located in the states with high concentrations of Latinos. California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois grasp a high percentage of the transactions made by Latinos. Most of the purchases made by the Latino community are oriented toward consumer goods and durable products. It is expected that young Latinos purchase mostly consumer goods (e.g. food items, clothing, and cosmetics). It is interesting to note that the purchasing characteristics of the Latino community differ based on the population's national origin, educational level, and wealth status. For example, Mexican-origin Latinos prefer to purchase traditional food products, which differ from the products demanded by the other Latino communities (Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and others). Currently, all the communities are slowly adopting food and clothing habits of mainstream America, thus demanding the same type of products that the majority of Americans consume.
We assume that the demand for consumer goods will increase considerably in the next decade, given the low income levels for most of the Latino households and their income inelasticity. Higher levels of purchasing power need to be correlated with the demand for high quality products. All these issues have already been recognized by large and small companies trying to sell their products to the Latino community. Large amounts of money are currently spent for the design and implementation of advertising campaigns directed to the Latino community. From the supply side, we can observe that Latinos are very good entrepreneurs. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of Latino companies has doubled in the last decade. Currently there are more than 10,000 Hispanic-owned firms in the United States. These companies created a half-million new jobs. The level of business generated by these new companies has been steadily increasing. New markets are continually being opened. Some of these companies are competing in the international markets with high quality products and trying to expand their business' activities at home and abroad. Most of the new entrepreneurs are young people looking for new business possibilities. Some Negative Signs: Potentially Serious Issues The youthfulness of the Latino population and its burgeoning size have been identified as key factors behind the nations' future supply of labor. Employers will only gain by investing more of their resources and activity in partnering with higher education to assure the employability of the growing population of Latino workers. If educational alliances work, then we could expect the states' Latinos to comprise one of the most valuable components of the labor market by the year 2000. Latino youth have options and problems to contend with. They are not all oriented towards mainstream society. As Latino youth continue to be the fastest growing segment of our society, it is of paramount importance that we become more familiar with the serious issues that they face. A quick review of national statistics gives glaring evidence that middle and high school dropout rates, low rates of post-secondary educational participation, gang involvement, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, and HIV/AIDS related health problems are issues which merit serious consideration (see appendix). These issues have tremendous bearing on the ability of this segment of the population to become productive adult members of our society. Although these issues are potentially devastating for all youth, regardless of race/ethnicity, researchers suggest that these issues may be more prevalent for the Latino community than the overall population of the United States (Solis, 1995; Ramos, 1991). Furthermore, the racial, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity of this community requires that researchers approach it with an acute sensitivity to the cultural and socio-economic underpinnings associated with these phenomena and not confuse them with the stereotypes popularized by the mass media. (1) Deviant and Criminal Acts There is little literature on Hispanic youth and delinquency from the last decade. Even in the decade of the 90's, the lack of information is not expected to improve since the FBI has stopped compiling crime and delinquency data by ethnicity (Rio, Santisteban, and Szapoczik, 1991). Hispanic youth are increasingly over-represented in juvenile facilities. In 1991, Hispanic youth comprised 13.8% of the population in detention centers, 13.6 % in recreational (detention) centers, and 8.5% of training schools (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991). Nevertheless, incarceration rates are no reliable measure of delinquency, especially because Hispanic youth tend to have relatively higher rates of incarceration and receive harsher sentences than what are warranted by the type and frequency of their offenses (Morales, Fergusen, and Mumford, 1983; Kristber, Schwartz, Fishman, Eisikovits, and Guttman, 1986: both cited in Rio, Santisteban, and Szapoczik, 1991). Most disturbing is that the incarceration rates for Hispanic youth are quickly gaining on the rates at which this population is represented within the nation's educational system. This underscores our need for educational programs designed to recruit and retain this population; lest does the penal system. (Table 13)
(2) Culturally Relevant and Responsive Education Needed As Hispanics as a whole struggle with mainstream issues to defy popular stereotypes, it is becoming increasingly clear that they need more education for survival. Educational attainment is at the top of their list of integrating strategies, becoming a common rallying cry of Hispanic communities across the nation. Nevertheless, Latino education has become a double-edged sword. On one side, it is highly regarded by this community as a means by which it can gain access to diminishing resources. On the other, the flourishing Hispanic presence has put Latinos at odds with other minority groups that perceive their resources as being threatened by immigrant newcomers. Between 1983 and 1993, the percentage of adult Latinos (age 25 and older) who reported graduation from high school increased from 46% to 53%. Meanwhile, about 9% have now attended at least four years of college, a percentage higher than a decade ago. As America's fastest growing ethnic group, Latinos lag behind all others in education. Non-Latinos show graduation rates of 80% for high school and 22% for college; this is a widening gap between Latinos and non-Latinos that can not be ignored.
Newcomer perception is a point of great contention for this community. Some community activists maintain that this is precisely the stereotype that the educational system fosters. This occurs by the educational system's reluctance to include material that gives a more accurate portrayal of Latinos in U.S. history and a less xenophobic approach to minority communities in their curricula. If assimilation has been a major goal of the U.S. society, it has used education as the fire that heats the melting pot. This melting pot mentality has been a great driving force throughout U.S. history, and it is largely responsible for the American way of life. According to some researchers, certain minority groups (e.g., Latinos, Blacks, Native Americans, and Asian Americans) have suffered discrimination and have never been encouraged to join the American mainstream (Curiel, 1991). Opponents of multiculturally based education seem to be following two paths in constructing their arguments. Both arguments, however, imply that Latino (minority) culture is inherently inferior and is the reason for such poor educational and economic showings (Lambourne and Baca Zinn, 1993). Some boldly argue that poor educational achievement and low intelligence testing amongst Hispanics may be genetically linked (Curiel, 1991). However, there appears to be an emergence of a "new and improved" version of this "underclass model," which makes a cultural instead of genetic link and is framed within an assimilationist perspective (Hurtado, 1995). This new model seems to be an extension of the "culture of poverty" thesis that contends that the reason for poverty is rooted in ethnic communities' cultural deviance from the Anglo mainstream. Hispanic children have long been assumed to be more affiliative and cooperative, whereas White children are more individualistic, competitive, and feel a high achievers (Lucas and Stone, 1993). This concept promotes the notion that the lack of Latinos' economic and educational advancements are easily explained by such cultural transgressions, namely the lack of parental interest in education (Lambourne and Baca Zinn, 1993), excessive masculinity, strong sense of familism, and low aspirations (Baca Zinn, 1989: as cited in Hurtado, 1995). Success (educational or otherwise) will come with assimilation. Ample evidence exists to support the correlation between the stratification of educational attainment along racial/ethnic lines to the processes of education itself (i.e., inequitable resources available to schools, differing teacher expectations, and tracking systems advantageous to those already benefiting from the educational system) (Lambourne and Baca Zinn, 1993). Nevertheless, conservative politicians and educators still argue against programs that are perceived to stall the assimilation process (e.g., bilingual education, culturally relevant curricula, affirmative action programs designed to increase the number of Latino students in higher education and sorely needed Latino educators). As Latino scholars, politicians, community activists, and students themselves gain greater numbers, they become positive proof that educational success is not tantamount to assimilation. Moreover, an emergence of young Latinos asserting the retention of their ethnic identity as a means, rather than a hindrance, to gaining success seems to be gaining prominence. The questions of identity are being played out in high schools and college campuses across the nation. Students and young community activists are pushing for the resurgence of the Chicano movement in the Midwest and Southwest as well as the Boricua (Puerto Rican) movement in the East. Students during the civil rights unrest chartered these two indigenously rooted movements originating in the 1960's. However, these movements are now being commandeered by student activists across nation who are advocating for institutional equity for Latinos through education. Given that 37.8% of all Hispanics (in 1990) were under the age of 19, and Latinos are the fastest growing segment of the population. These movements will grow increasingly important. The 1990 Census reported that only 52.1% of Hispanics between 18-24 had completed high school, compared to 81.7% of Whites and 75.1% of Blacks for the same age group. The same year counted 32.4% of the Hispanics between ages of 16 and 24 as high school dropouts, more than triple the rate for Whites (9.0%) and almost triple the rate for Blacks (13.2%) in the same age group. Such dismal high school completion rates for Hispanics have gravely diminished the pool of admissible candidates for college, making them one of the most critically underrepresented groups in higher education. Fortunately, this rate is on an upward trend as the overall participation rate of Latinos in post-secondary education increased from 14.2% in 1980 to 22.9% in 1990. Despite this promising trend, Latino youth are still lagging behind their White (35.9%, 1990), Black (27.1%, 1990), and Asian-American (55.1%, 1990) counterparts. Additionally, only 12% of Hispanic 22 year olds attain a bachelor's degree compared to 15% of Blacks and 25% of Whites in the same age (Sorensen, Brewer, Carroll, and Bryton, 1995). Conclusions Much more research and thought will be needed to identify opportunities for Latino youth and perhaps to develop strategies to incorporate Latino youth in more positive roles as leaders, academics, and workers. We argue that we need a full-scale blueprint for investing in Latino youth and their future. We envision a need for progressive programs that address issues of identity, education, income, growth, purchasing power and deviant, and criminal behavior. This is a complex set of challenges requiring a sensitivity to the cultural and socio-economic underpinnings associated with these phenomena. We also assert that Latino youth must be examined within the context of one of the most powerful institutions that exists in their community: la familia (the family). Immigration, recency of arrival, racial and ethnic diversity, racial definitions, and religiously rooted customs within the Latino community all play integral parts in the formation of diverse familial structure, attitudes, and trends. However, the traditional strength and cohesion of la familia remains universal. It sets this community apart as a unique entity, which necessitates the creation of new models of study. If nothing else, la familia compels youth and scholars to broaden their understanding of how this community weathered over 150 years of subjugation, discrimination, segregation, and marginalization, and has still managed to retain it. Assimilationists would have us believe that Latinos will eventually acculturate, thereby adopting values, beliefs, and normative behaviors of the dominant culture, departing from their traditional (inferior) cultural traits (Montalvo, 1991). However, this idea implies that all Latinos are relatively recent immigrants. It further implies that new and prolonged contact with Anglos will eventually cause the erosion of Latino families' function and structure. It does not consider the fact that some Latino subgroups and their families have been in contact with Anglos for over 150 years and have retained much of their unique characteristics (Griswold del Castillo, 1984). This is not to say that Latino families are static institutions. Instead, it may be that assimilationists make no room for biculturality. Bicultural people are unique in their ability to interact with their own people on their own cultural terms as well as their ability with which they negotiate through the dominant society (Blea, 1988). Latinos are a vastly understudied group, but one that merits serious consideration. When approaching the Latino youth and their persistent familial trait, we believe that biculturality significantly mitigates some of the conflicts that researchers assume arise from the ideals and norms that are perceived to be counter to the Latino youth's cognitive beliefs and norms (i.e. race, gender, familism vs. individualism). We also believe that this phenomenon merits more consideration in ways that would add considerably to our understanding of this community, its youth, and the structure and function of its families. Perhaps biculturality offers a better explanation for the persistence of some trends, and variation of others, within the Latino community than the popular but simplistic cultural arguments offer today. Finally, we would like to help foster greater incorporation of Latino youth in the economy as private entrepreneurs and public officials. Such efforts will have to involve leaders of the educational system, the private sector, and philanthropy in order to sponsor policies and programs that address needed changes in our population. Despite the immensity of the challenges, we feel confident that opportunities are within reach for Latino youth. It will take supporters with desire, courage, and personal dedication to facing challenges associated with the opportunities for Latino youth. Endnotes 1. Translation: "a mixed race, a mix of all races, a race of color, the first synthetic, global race." 2. The U.S. Bureau of the Census defines a Hispanic as follows: Persons of Hispanic/Spanish origin are those who classified themselves as one of the specific Hispanic origin categories listed on the census questionnaire - Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or "Other" Hispanic/Spanish origin. Persons of "Other" Hispanic/Spanish origin are those whose origins are from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, or the Dominican Republic, or they are persons of Hispanic origin identifying themselves generally as Spanish, Spanish-American, Hispanic, Hispano, Latino, etc. Origin can be viewed as ancestry, nationality group, lineage or country of birth of the person or the person's parents or ancestors before their arrival to the U.S. Hispanic/Spanish is not a race category. Therefore, persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Anzaldua, Gloria. 1997. "La Conciencia da la Latina: Towards a New Consciousness." In M. Baca Zinn, P. Hondagneu-Sotelo, and M. Messner eds.). Through the Prism of Difference: Readings on Sex and Gender. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon. Aponte, Robert and Marcelo Siles. 1994. "Latinos in the Heartland: The Browning of the Midwest." Research Report No. 5, The Julian Samora Research Institute. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University. Bean, F. and M. Tienda. 1987. The Hispanic Population in the United States. New York: Russell Sage. Blea, Irene I. 1988. Toward a Chicano Social Science. New York, N.Y.: Prager Publishers. Chapa, Jorge and R. Valencia. 1993. "Latino Population Growth, Demographic Characteristics, and Education Stagnation: An Examination of Recent Trends." Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15 2): 165-186. Curiel, Herman. 1991. Strengthening Family and School Bonds in Promoting Hispanic Children's School Performance. del Pinal, Jorge and A. Singer. Generations of Diversity: Latinos in the United States, Population Bulletin, Vol. 52, No. 3. Washington, D.C. Population Reference Bureau Inc. October, 1997. Duany, Luis and K. Pittman 1990. Latino Youths at a Crossroads, Children's Defense Fund. Fox, Jeoffrey. 1996. Hispanic Nation. Carol Pub. Group. Garcia, Victor. 1996. "All Was Not Lost-The Political Victories of Mexican Immigrants in Guadalupe, California." In R. Rochín (ed.), Immigration and Ethnic Communities: A Focus on Latinos. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University. Griswold del Castillo, Richard. 1984. La Familia: Chicano Families in the Urban Southwest. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre dame Press. Harrison, Lawrence E. 1992. Who Prospers: How Cultural Values Shape Economic and Political Success, Basic Books. Hodgkinson, Harold and J. Hamilton Outtz. 1996. Hispanic Americans: A Look Back, A Look Ahead. Washington, D.C.: The Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc., Center for Demographic Policy. Hurtado, Aida. 1995. "Variations, Combinations, and Evolutions: Latino Families in the United States." In R. Zambrana ed.), Understanding Latino Families. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Lambourne, Karen and M. Baca Zinn. 1993. "Education, Race, and Family: Issues for the 1990's." Working Paper Series #16. Julian Samora Research Institute. East Lansing, Mich.: MSU. Latino Voices. 1992. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Lucas, Julie R. and G. Stone. 1994. "Acculturation and Competition Among Mexican Americans: A Reconceptualization." Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 16, 2: 129-142. Massey, Douglas. 1993. "Latinos, Poverty, and the Underclass: A New Agenda for Research." Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15, 4: 449-475. Montalvo, Frank F. 1991. "Phenotyping, Acculturation, and Biracial Assimilation of Mexican Americans." In M. Sotomayor ed.), Empowering Hispanic Families: A Critical Issue for the Nineties. Milwaukee, Wisc.: Family Service America. National Association of Hispanic Publications. 1995. Current Population Reports: Hispanics - Latinos: Diverse people in a Multicultural Society. Washington, D.C. Ramos, Juan. 1991. "Forward" In M. Sotomayor ed., Empowering Hispanic Families: A Critical Issue for the Nineties. Milwaukee, Wisc.: Family Service America. Rio, Arturo T., D. Santisteban, and J. Szapocznik. 1991. "Juvenile Delinquency among Hispanics" In M. Sotomayor ed., Empowering Hispanic Families: A Critical Issue for the Nineties. Milwaukee, Wisc.: Family Service America. Rumbaut, Ruben. 1996. "Immigrants From Latin America and the Caribbean: A Socio-Economic Profile." In R. Rochín ed., Immigration and Ethnic Communities: A Focus on Latinos. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University. Shorris, Earl. 1992. Latinos: A Biography of the People, New York, N.Y.: W.W. Norton and Company. Short, James F., Jr. I996. "Forward: Diversity and Change in U.S. Gangs." In C. Huff ed., Gangs in America. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc. Solis, Julie. 1995. "The Status of Latino Children and Youth: Challenges and Prospects," In R. Zambrana ed., Understanding Latino Families, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Sorensen, Stephen, D. J. Brewer, S.J. Carroll, and E. Bryton. 1995. "Increasing Hispanic Participation in Higher Education: A Desirable Public Investment." Hyperlink http://www.rand.org: http://www.rand.org U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1993. Current Population Statistics. 1995. P25-1130, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Suggested Readings Anderson R.N., K.D. Kochanek, S.L. Murphy. 1997. Report of Final Mortality Statistics, 1995, Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 45, No. 11, Supp. 2, Hyattsville, Mary.: National Center for Health Statistics. Baca Zinn, Maxine. 1995. "Social Science Theorizing for Latino families in the Age of Diversity." In R. Zambrana ed., Understanding Latino Families. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Beach, Betty A. 1997. Perspectives on Rural Child Care. Eric Digest, EDO-RC-96-9, Charleston, W.V.: ERIC/CRESS. Bonczar, Thomas and A.J. Beck. 1997. Lifetime Likelihood of Going to State of Federal Prison. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Carter, Deborah and R. Wilson. 1997. Fifteenth Annual Status Report on Minorities in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Council on Education. Chahin, Jamie. 1993. "Hispanics In Higher Education: Trends in Participation," In Eric Digest, EDO-RC-93-5, Charleston, W.V.: ERIC/CRESS. Davis, Shelley. 1997. "Child Labor in Agriculture," ERIC Digest, EDO-RC-96-10, Charleston, W.V.: ERIC/ CRESS. Douglas, Nick. 1996. "Purchasing Power at $223 Billion," in Hispanic Business, Santa Barbara, Calif.: Hispanic Business, Inc. Enchautegui, Maria E. 1995. Policy Implications of Latino Poverty. The Urban Institute. Fix, Michael and W. Zimmerman. 1993. Educating Immigrant Children. The Urban Institute. Flores, Judith LeBlanc. 1996. Children of La Frontera. Appalachia Educational Laboratory. Flores, William V. and R. Benmayor. 1997. Latino Cultural Citizenship. Beacon Press. Gaffney, Nancy A. 1996. Enhancing the Minority Presence in Graduate Education VII: Latino Experiences in Graduate Education: Implications for Change. Washington, D.C.: Council of Graduate Schools. Heller, Celia S. 1966. Mexican American Youth: Forgotten youth at the Crossroads. Random House, Inc. Huff, C. Ronald. 1996. Gangs In America. Sage Pubs. John, Andrew and Kei-Mu Yi. 1997. "Language, Learning, and Location," Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, No. 26, June. Maciel, David R. and I.D. Ortiz eds. 1996. Chicanas/Chicanos at the Crossroads: Social, Economic, and Political Change, Tucson, Ariz.: The University of Arizona Press. Martin, Philip. 1994. "Migrant Farmworkers and Their Children." Eric Digest, EDO-RC-94-7, Charleston, W.V.: ERIC/CRESS. November. Mirande, Alfredo. 1997. Hombres y Machos: Masculinity in Latino Culture. Westview Press, Division of Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. Moore, Joan W. 1978. Homeboys: Gangs, Drugs, and Prison in the Barrios of Los Angeles. Philadelphia, Penn.: Temple University Press. Moore, Joan W. 1991). Going Down to the Barrio: Homeboys and Homegirls in Change. Philadelphia, Penn.: Temple University Press. National Council of La Raza. 1997. One Step Closer to Your Dreams: Making Your Paycheck Work for You. National Endowment for Financial Education. National Institute of Justice. 1995. Research On Crime and Justice: Year in Review 1995. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. 1996. Drug Use Forecasting: Annual Report On Adult and Juvenile Arrestees. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. 1997. "Crime and Illegal Immigration: Emerging Local, State, and Federal Partnerships." National Institute of Justice Journal. June. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Navarro, Armando. 1995. Mexican American Youth Organization. Austin: University of Texas Press. Nieves-Squires, Sarah. 1991. Hispanic Women Making Their Presence Less Tenuous. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges. Oboler, Suzanne. 1995. Ethnic Labels, Latino Lives. University of Minnesota Press. Perez, Sonia M. and Eric Rodriguez. 1996. Untapped Potential: A Look at Hispanic Women in the U.S. Washington, D.C.: National Council of La Raza. President Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. 1996. "Our Nation on the Faultline: Hispanic American Education." A Report to the President of the U.S., the Nation, and the Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. Reyes, Belinda. 1997. Dynamics of Immigration: Return Migration to Western Mexico. Public Policy Institute. Romero, Mary, P.H. Sotelo, and V. Ortiz, eds. 1997. Challenging Fronteras: Structuring Latina and Latino Lives in the U.S. New York, N.Y.: Routledge. Rothenberg, B. Annye. 1995. Understanding and Working with Parents and Children from Rural Mexico, Menlo Park, Calif.: The CHC Center for Child and Family Development Press. Rumbaut, Ruben G. and W.A. Cornelius. 1995. California's Immigrant Children. San Diego: University of California. Rumbaut, Ruben G. 1997. "Passages to Adulthood: the Adoption of Children of Immigrants in Southern California." Report to the Russell Sage Foundation Board of Trustees, June 18. Sotomayor, Marta. 1991. Empowering Hispanic Families: A Critical Issue For the '90's. Milwaukee, Wisc.: Family Service America. Vigil, James D. 1997. "Learning from Gangs: The Mexican American Experience," Eric Digest, EDO-RC-97-1, Charleston, W.V.: ERIC/CRESS. February. Vigil, James D. 1996. Southern California Gangs: Comparative Ethnicity and Social Control. In C. Ronald Huff ed., Gangs in America. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1993. Current Population Reports, P23-183, "Hispanic Americans Today." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor "News" Bulletin. 1995. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Labor Statistics. July 23. |
|
|
|
For more information, contact: |
