state of hispanic america 2004: latino perspectives on the american agenda

The National Council of La Raza – the largest national constituency-based Hispanic organization andthe leading voice in Washington, DC for the Hispanic community – was founded in 1968 to reducepoverty and discrimination and improve life opportunities for Hispanic Americans. Four majorfunctions provide essential focus to the organization’s work: capacity-building assistance; appliedresearch, policy analysis, and advocacy; public information efforts; and special and internationalprojects. These functions complement NCLR’s work in five key strategic priorities – education,assets/investment, economic mobility, health, and media/image/civil rights. Through its network ofmore than 300 affiliated community-based organizations, NCLR reaches over four million Latinoseach year in 41 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.

STATE OF HISPANIC AMERICA 2004:

Latino Perspectives

on the American

Agenda

National Council of La Raza

1111 19th Street, NW

Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 785-1670

www.nclr.org

© February 2004

NCLR ■ STATE OF HISPANIC AMERICA 2004

This report was acollaborative effort of staffof the National Council of

La Raza (NCLR) Office ofResearch, Advocacy, andLegislation. Michele Waslin,Ph.D., Senior Immigration PolicyAnalyst, and Sonia M. Pérez,Deputy Vice President forResearch, were the report’seditors.

In addition to the specific staffcontributors noted in each sectionof the report, Senior VicePresident Charles Kamasaki, VicePresident Cecilia Muñoz, VicePresident Lisa Navarrete, andDirector for State/Local PublicPolicy Clarissa Martínez de Castroprovided substantive and contentguidance. The following NCLRcolleagues also contributed to theproduction of the report:

■ Rosemary Aguilar Francis,Director of DesktopPublishing, designed andprepared the report’s layoutand cover.

■ Lindsay Daniels, PolicyAssociate, provided data andtechnical support in thepreparation of graphs andcharts.

■ Jennifer Kadis, Editor,provided expert editorialguidance and prepared thereport for publication.

The preparation of this report wasmade possible by funding providedby the Rockefeller Foundation andthe John D. and Catherine T.MacArthur Foundation, throughtheir general or core support toNCLR’s Policy Analysis Center; theFord Foundation, through itssupport of the organization’s civilrights, assets development, andimmigration policy work; the

Open Society Institute, throughits support of the institution’swork on criminal justice issues;the Annie E. Casey Foundation,through its support of NCLR’swork on employment issues; theW.K. Kellogg Foundation and theCarnegie Corporation of NewYork, through their support forthe organization’s educationpolicy activity; the CaliforniaEndowment, through its supportof NCLR’s health policy work; andthe Fannie Mae Foundation andBank of America, through theirsupport of the institution’s policyactivity on housing andhomeownership. The finalcontent of the report, as well aserrors of logic and fact, is the soleresponsibility of NCLR.

Permission to copy, disseminate,or otherwise use information fromthis report is granted, as long asappropriate credit is given toNCLR.

Page i


Acknowledgments

Page ii


One of the most positiveoutcomes of the CensusBureau’s announcement

in 2003 that Latinos are now thenation’s largest minority isincreased attention to, andinterest in, the Latino community.There is no truer indication ofthat than my recent experiencebrowsing in a bookstore where Isaw a copy of a new book, Latinosfor Dummies, for sale.

Thirteen years ago, when NCLRcreated the State of HispanicAmerica series, many questionedwhether in fact an HispanicAmerica truly existed. It is one ofthe most gratifying developmentsin my career to see that, in 2004,we are closer than ever to anational Latino community with ashared past, a common agenda,and a united future.

One consequence of our growingnumbers will inevitably be anincrease in political and economicpower. But if we are to be heard

and, more importantly, beeffective, we must define what westand for. This task will not beaccomplished in one day orperhaps in even one generation,but we must be bold enough tobegin the discussion.

Stereotypes about our communityabound, but invisibility is evenmore pervasive. For mostAmericans, Hispanics are a dimly-blurred and often contradictoryimage. There are those who seeus only as supplicants and not asdecision-makers, as consumersand not as producers, aslawbreakers and not as lawenforcers, as tax beneficiaries andnot as tax contributors.

As we celebrate the growingpolitical power of our community,it is appropriate to ask: Power todo what? I believe that we seekpower to help this nation fulfill itsdestiny, to live up to its ideals, andto go beyond the sometimes toonarrow definition of what itmeans to be an American.

I believe that we as Latinos shouldbe about not only demanding ourrights, but fully preparing toshoulder our responsibilities. Wewant to build a nation whereopportunity and fairness abound,where families are rewarded forplaying by the rules, and wherepeople are judged by their actionsand not by their accents.

We believe that civil rights are thebirthright of every American andnot the exclusive domain of anygroup or either gender.

We believe that the promise ofAmerica comes from embracingmany of the world’s races,cultures, and religions. Webelieve that Hispanics share withall other peoples of the world acommon heritage and destiny, andthat Latinos provide an example ofa world in which traditionalconcepts of race can betranscended.

Page iii


FOREWORD*

* Adapted from a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, September 24, 2003.

We believe that as a sovereignnation we have the right toprotect our borders, to decide whohas the right to enter our countryand, also, the conditions thatgovern immigration into ournation. But we also believe thatas a nation of immigrants and as awise and humane people we mustchoose policies that are consistentwith our own economic self-interest and that honor ourhistory with our neighbors.Above all, we recognize the sharedhumanity that we have with thosewho risk their lives for freedomand opportunity.

We believe in the sanctity of theheritage of language and cultureand we treasure these gifts. Wereject the false dichotomybetween preserving our languageand becoming first-classAmericans. Cherishing ourancestral languages and culturesdoes not mean rejecting ourcommon language of English. Webelieve in more languagecompetency, not less, and webelieve that we will become morerelevant in the world when welearn to view the globe throughthe prisms of other languages.When it comes to language, moreis better.

We believe in the work ethic,patriotism, the importance offamilies, the free enterprisesystem, and the value of faith.Moreover, we not only pay verbalhomage to these values, we livethem day in and day out.

Above all, we have an unshakablebelief that this nation’s best daysare ahead of us – that this nationwill continue to rise and thatLatinos will continue to climb.My life’s work has convinced methat there is a direct correlationbetween these realities. So, wewelcome this attention to Latinos– from Rogers, Arkansas to Boise,Idaho – and look forward to usingour values, our beliefs, to build onand expand the American agenda.

Page iv


Raul YzaguirreWashington, DC

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Counterterrorism Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Criminal Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Farmworkers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Homeownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Page v


Table of Contents

Page vi


Four years into the 21stcentury, demographicchanges and increasing

racial/ethnic diversity show thatwe cannot afford to talk aboutLatinos* on the one hand and therest of Americans on the other.Indeed, as the Hispanicpopulation increases its visibilityin every sector of American life, ithas become clear that the state ofHispanic America cannot bedistinguished from the state ofAmerica itself. One in eightAmericans is of Latino origin andhalf of Latinos are under 25 yearsold.** The nation’s priorities andoverall well-being will soon reflectthe issues that matter to Latinosand how well the communityfares.

The merging of increasingly-defined Latino interests with thedirection of public policy andaccurate public images of theHispanic community is occurring

with mixed success. In one sense,the National Council of La Raza(NCLR) has long asserted that“the Hispanic agenda is anAmerican agenda,” and publicopinion research increasinglydemonstrates that aspirations ofLatinos are highly congruentamong all Latino subgroups, aswell as with those of their fellowAmericans. In particular, theHispanic community’s core values– a consistently solid work ethic,personal responsibility, highpriority on family, patriotism, andspiritualism – are shared by themajority of Americans. Moreover,the Hispanic community’s rapidpopulation growth and heavyconcentration in “battleground”states, the large proportion ofLatino voters who are not tied toeither political party, and theprospect of a close presidentialelection with a sharply dividedelectorate have combined toproduce a “perfect storm” of

conditions resulting inunprecedented attention by themedia and political candidates tothis community and its potentialvoting power.

But in another sense, the Latinocommunity and those trulyinterested in improving thesocioeconomic status of HispanicAmericans find this current waveof attention often frustrating,sometimes dangerous, and alwayschallenging, for two reasons.

First, Latinos understand thatincreased media and candidateattention to the Hispaniccommunity does not necessarilytranslate into either moreaccurate portrayals of Latinos orresponsiveness to the issues thatthey care about. Instead, forthose interested in exploitingnatural tensions associated withdemographic change to advancetheir agendas, this attentionprovides opportunities to smear

Page 1


Introduction

* The terms “Latino” and “Hispanic” are used interchangeably by the U.S. Census Bureau to identify persons ofMexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central and South American, Dominican, and Spanish descent; they may be of anyrace.

** Hispanic/Latino data do not include residents of Puerto Rico.

Latinos as divisive, unpatriotic, orun-American. Additionally, thepolitical extremists intent onscapegoating, slandering, andpunishing the Latino communityat every turn, whether the issuerelates to the economy, crime,housing, or immigration, furtherimpede meaningful policy-makingon these issues.

Second, the Latino community isalso skeptical, since its experiencein the past suggests that the lifespan of this type of attentiontends to equal the length of anelection season, with nosubstantive follow-up onimportant community concerns inpost- or non-election years.Indeed, much of this recentcampaigning has demonstratedthat the attention the communityis receiving is superficial at best,and patronizing at worst, andappears to be based on theassumption that symbolic appeals– throwing a few Spanish phrasesinto a speech or translating somematerials into Spanish – ought tobe sufficient to attract Latinosupport.

However, as many Latinoadvocates have argued, the growthof the Hispanic population hasbeen accompanied by a rise ininterest on issues; like othervoters, Latinos care deeply aboutsubstance, and even well-intentioned gestures such as theseare not enough.

An American AgendaThis report represents the mostrecent effort by NCLR and othersto highlight and underscore themajor issues that concernHispanic families and voters,address the knowledge gapsregarding Latino interests, andcontribute to an accurateportrayal of the Hispaniccommunity’s socioeconomicstatus. As noted by NCLR’sPresident in the Foreword to thisreport, despite its diversity theHispanic community shares keyelements of a common agenda.

For example, a series of polls ofHispanics commissioned byentities across the politicalspectrum shows a remarkableconvergence around key issues,including education, economicconcerns, and immigration.Specifically, a poll from theRepublican-leaning The LatinoCoalition (TLC) revealed that thetop six issues identified by Latinosin August 2003 were:jobs/economy, education,immigration, health care,language/integration into U.S. life,and discrimination.

Similarly, the Democratic-leaningNew California Media’s “Flash”Poll of Latinos conducted inJanuary 2004 shows that the topfive issues were: education, jobsand the economy, health care,terrorism, and immigration.

Furthermore, a previous NCLRsynthesis of polls conducted ofdifferent segments of the Latinopopulation over the past five yearsshowed that:

■ Education was the first orsecond priority issue in nearlyhalf of polls.

■ Jobs/Economy ranked amongthe top two issues in 41% ofpolls.

■ Health concerns were viewedas a “major” issue in nearlyevery poll.

■ Discrimination/civil rightswere noted as importantconcerns.

NCLR’s review of Latino pollingdata also revealed a high interestin crime and police-communityrelations, and a belief thatgovernment has an important roleto play in ensuring fairness andsafety for all Americans. With theexception of immigration policy,which understandably is of greatinterest to the Latino populationgiven that about 40% of Hispanicsare foreign-born, in varyingdegrees these issues closelymirror results of polls of thegeneral public regarding majorsocietal concerns requiring policy-maker attention.

In addition to the aspirations andvalues that Latinos share with allAmericans, there are several otherconcerns that directly and

Page 2


distinctively affect Hispanics, andrelate to their specificcharacteristics, experiences, andhistory. For example, the uniqueoccupational characteristics andconcentration in certain segmentsof the labor market of Latinoworkers require specific policyresponses. Similarly, theyouthfulness and overallinadequate educational outcomesof Hispanics explain the stronginterest of the community ineducation policy. Additionally, thepresence of a significant numberof Hispanic immigrants not onlyincreases the salience ofimmigration policy, but also hasimplications for education andhousing policy.

Although these particularconditions and experiences mayrequire policy-makers to workwith Hispanic advocates to forgenew and distinctive paths toaddress these gaps, in the endthese new strategies simplyrepresent an expansion of avenuesthat will allow additionalgenerations of Americans toachieve the American Dream.

The Latino Perspective:An Eight-Piece AgendaIn the following sections of thisreport, NCLR has outlined specificpriorities that together help toinform policy-makers, publicofficials, candidates, and thepublic about what matters to theLatino community and why. Thediscussion focuses on thefollowing eight issues:counterterrorism policies,criminal justice, education,employment, farmworkers, health,homeownership, andimmigration.

NCLR believes that promoting andadvancing the specificrecommendations that follow canhelp to ensure that Latinos and allother Americans are safe, aretreated fairly, receive a high-quality education, are able toachieve and maintain economicsecurity for their families, haveaccess to health care, and cancreate and sustain strongcommunities. While there aresurely other concerns of meritthat are not included in thisreport, the issues that are

included were selected based ontwo policy-relevant criteria:

■ The issue is actionable.There are one or more seriouspolicy proposals pendingbefore the Administration orCongress which Latinos canreasonably expect will beacted upon in the next fewyears.

■ The issue has significantimpact on the community.Enactment of specificproposals or provisions wouldproduce important benefits orharms, which are not simplysymbolic, to a large segmentof the community.

Moreover, the report’srecommendations with respect toprogram investments and policydecisions ride on NCLR’sunderstanding that all Americansstand to gain from shaping brightoutcomes for the 40 millionLatinos whose well-being isdirectly tied to the nation’s future.

Page 3


Like all Americans, Latinossupport measures thatstrengthen and protect

national security. As a result ofthe tragic events of September 11,2001, they share the nation’sdesire to ensure safety andprevent future atrocities.

Over the past three years,however, efforts to thwartpotential terrorist attacks and thedevelopment of policies to identifyindividuals who pose a threat toour nation have alienated andmarginalized segments of theLatino community, andimmigrant populations as awhole, with little evidence thatthese steps are effective. Inparticular, immigration andnational security are nowintermingled in the U.S. inunprecedented ways, andimmigrants – or those perceivedto be immigrants – have taken thebrunt of many new policiesintended to increase nationalsecurity. The government’scounterterrorism efforts have hadthe most negative effects onAmerican Muslims and Arab

Americans. However, many of thenewly-enacted policies have had adetrimental effect on noncitizenLatinos, and even Hispanic U.S.citizens have been affectedbecause they are mistaken forimmigrants or because theirimmigrant family members havebeen targeted.1 As a result, therights of noncitizens have beenseriously undermined,2 and manyobservers have also documentedthe infringements on the civilrights of all Americans sinceSeptember 11.3

Data and ResearchHighlightsSeveral policies and practicesintended to reduce terroristthreats have, instead, contributedto less safe communities, and thefollowing issues are of particularconcern:

Enforcement of federalimmigration law by state andlocal police. In recent years therehave been increasing efforts bythe federal government to enliststate and local law enforcementofficers in the enforcement of

federal immigration law. In June2002, Attorney General JohnAshcroft declared that state andlocal police have the authority toenforce civil and criminalimmigration laws.4 In the monthssince that announcement, stateand local police have been calledupon to aid in immigrationenforcement through the use ofthe National Crime InformationCenter (NCIC) database, adatabase that all law enforcementofficers can access and that nowcontains an unknown quantity ofnames of certain immigrationviolators.5 Additionally, legislationhas been introduced in both theHouse of Representatives and theSenate which would authorizestate and local police to enforceall federal criminal and civilimmigration laws and allow forthe entry of additionalimmigration violators into theNCIC database.

This is troublesome because it hasthe potential to undo efforts thathave sought to strengthenrelationships, based on outreachand trust, between state and local

Page 5


Counterterrorism PoliciesBY MICHELE WASLIN, SENIOR IMMIGRATION POLICY ANALYST

Overview

police and communities. In fact,evidence shows that communitypolicing efforts, in cities such asDurham, North Carolina, FortWorth, Texas, and Los Angeles,California, have resulted inpositive relationships betweenpolice and Latino communities.6

According to the U.S. Departmentof Justice, violent crime againstLatinos dropped by 56% duringthe 1990s,7 and law enforcementofficials attribute this drop incrime, in part, to increased trustbetween local police officers andLatino communities.8 While themost important component ofoutreach to the Latinocommunity is an assurance thatthe police will not harassindividuals about theirimmigration status, the Ashcroftannouncement and theintroduction of these bills havecontributed to increased fear inLatino and immigrantcommunities, leading to anunwillingness to cooperate withlaw enforcement, to reportcrimes, and to come forward aswitnesses.9 As a result, policedepartments lose the trust of thecommunities they aim to protect,communication between thepolice and large segments of thecommunity is lost, and allAmericans are less safe. In fact,many police departments acrossthe country have stated that theywill not involve themselves in

immigration enforcement becausethey recognize the detrimentaleffects that the loss of communitytrust can have.10 Even U.S.citizens and lawfully-presentimmigrants will cease tocooperate with police if they sensethat the police are viewing themwith suspicion because of theirethnicity or the language theyspeak. Strong community-policerelations result in saferneighborhoods for all residents.

Issuance of driver’s licenses.Driver’s licenses are necessary forparticipation in many facets ofdaily life, including driving legally,banking, renting an apartment,and establishing service forutilities. New restrictions ondriver’s licenses and state-issuedidentification cards have made itdifficult for many immigrants toobtain identity documents, one ofthe most important and broadly-felt problems for the Latinocommunity. Prior to September11, there were efforts in manystates to improve road safety bybroadening access to driver’slicenses to undocumentedimmigrants who live and work inthe community, so that theymight obtain proper drivertraining and vehicular insurance.However, the revelations thatsome of the 19 terrorists hadstate-issued driver’s licensescaused many states to propose and

enact restrictions on immigrantaccess to driver’s licenses despitethe fact that that all of the 19 hadother valid documents, such aspassports, that could serve asidentification.11

In 2003, approximately 117driver’s license bills wereintroduced in 39 states, comparedto 63 in 2002. Thus far, tenrestrictive bills have been passedin the past two years. In addition,several expansive driver’s licensebills have been passed in fivestates, allowing persons to usealternative identitydocumentation and obtain driver’slicenses regardless of immigrationstatus.12 Not only do restrictivepractices prohibit manyundocumented immigrants fromgetting licensed, but many legalresidents and even U.S. citizenshave been affected by therestrictions because of harassmentand discrimination, or becausepoorly-conceived policies denylicenses to lawful residents.13

Acceptance of foreign-issuedidentification documents.Although the Mexicangovernment has issued identitydocuments to its nationals in theU.S. since the 19th century(matrículas consulares) and othergovernments are now followingsuit, these foreign government-issued identifications (IDs) haverecently come under attack.

Page 6


Matrículas are identificationdocuments only and do notbestow any immigration benefitson the individual. The Mexicangovernment has gone to greatlengths to update the securitymeasures on the card and in theissuance process. Over 800 policedepartments around the countrynow accept the Mexican consularID as an identification document.Moreover, over 100 banks nowaccept matrículas and, as a result,immigrants can open accountsand deposit money safely,establish credit lines, and sendremittances to their homecountries without payingexorbitant fees. Access to valididentification documentsencourages trust between Latinosand public officials andinstitutions, reduces the marketfor fraudulent documents, andincreases overall public safety.

Racial Profiling. For years,immigration officials have usedrace to determine who to stop anddetain for immigration lawenforcement purposes. Prior toSeptember 11, there were manyexamples of the use of selectiveenforcement of immigration laws,undermining the rights of citizensand legal residents.14 Latinocitizens, legal immigrants, andundocumented people have beenstopped and their immigrationpapers demanded, solely on the

basis of race, ethnicity, nationalorigin, language, or accent.15

Along the U.S.-Mexico border,even Latino federal judges havebeen stopped and required toproduce immigration documentsupon demand.16 The newproposals to involve state andlocal police in the enforcement ofimmigration laws discussed aboveonly increase the probability ofthe use of racial profiling.

Since immigration functions havebeen transferred to theDepartment of Homeland Security(DHS) in 2003, racial profiling hasbecome an even greater issue asall immigrants or those who“appear” to be immigrants havebeen targeted by counterterrorismmeasures. For example:

■ Many Latinos have beencaught up in enhancedworksite enforcement effortsin places considered to beimportant to nationalsecurity. With theimplementation of “OperationTarmac,” the immigrationenforcement agencies andU.S. Attorneys’ officesthroughout the countryarrested over 350 individualsat 13 airports mainly forpresenting false informationregarding their immigrationstatus or using falsedocumentation to obtainemployment.17 Hundreds

more immigrants lost theirjobs as a result of the raids.The federal government hasnot been able to connect anyof those arrested at theairports with terrorism orterrorist activities.

■ In the Southeast, where theLatino population is growingsignificantly, there have beenincreasing incidences ofhighway patrols stoppingLatinos, especially newimmigrants. This type ofracial profiling occurs atcheckpoints as well asthrough normal highwaypatrols, which stop and harassindividuals based onrace/ethnicity and then checktheir immigration status.18

The Mexican American LegalDefense and EducationalFund (MALDEF) recentlysettled a racial profiling caseagainst the city of Rogers,Arkansas where the policeviolated Latinos’ civil rightsand engaged in racialprofiling.19

■ The U.S. Department ofJustice’s 2003 “GuidanceRegarding the Use of Race byFederal Law EnforcementOfficials” asserts that theDHS can utilize racialprofiling at the border andwhenever national security isimplicated.20 This could result

Page 7


in increased, government-sanctioned, civil rightsviolations. Furthermore,although it prohibits racialprofiling by federal lawenforcement officials, it doesnot address state and localauthorities, leaving room forconfusion and perhaps evenmore racial profiling of thosewho “look like” immigrants.21

RecommendationsTo promote public safety,strengthen overall nationalsecurity, and protect the basicrights of all Americans, NCLRrecommends:

■ Opposing efforts to involvestate and local police inenforcing federalimmigration laws. Inparticular, the CLEAR Act(H.R. 2671) and theHomeland SecurityEnhancement Act (S. 1906),currently under considerationby Congress, containprovisions that affirm theinherent authority of stateand local police to enforcefederal civil and criminalimmigration laws andcriminalize minor civilimmigration violations. Theyauthorize entering the names

of millions of immigrationviolators into the NCIC, butcall for minimal trainingrequirements for policeofficers and grant immunityto police officers and agenciesthat violate civil rights.

■ Supporting the issuance ofdriver’s licenses and stateIDs to all state residentsregardless of immigrationstatus and opposing effortsto restrict the use of consularidentification cards as a validform of identification.

Page 8


Notes1. See Waslin, Michele, Counterterrorism and the Latino Community Since September 11. Washington,

DC: National Council of La Raza, May 2003.

2. See, “Executive Actions Threaten Fundamental Freedoms.” Washington, DC: American ImmigrationLawyers Association, 2002.

3. See Insatiable Appetite: The Government’s Demand for New and Unnecessary Powers After September11. Washington, DC: American Civil Liberties Union, 2002; Presumption of Guilt: Human RightsAbuses of Post-September 11 Detainees. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch, 2002; Schulhofer,Stephen J., The Enemy Within: Intelligence Gathering, Law Enforcement, and Civil Liberties in theWake of September 11. New York, NY: Century Foundation Press, 2002; A Year of Loss: ReexaminingCivil Liberties Since September 11. New York, NY: Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, 2002;America’s Challenge: Domestic Security, Civil Liberties, and National Unity After September 11.Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2003.

4. For more information see Waslin, Michele, Immigration Enforcement by Local Police: The Impact onthe Civil Rights of Latinos, NCLR Issue Brief Number 10. Washington, DC: National Council of LaRaza, January 2003.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. “Crimes Against Latinos Decrease,” Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2002.

8. Ibid.

9. See “State and Local Police Enforcing Immigration Laws: Stories from around the Nation.”Washington, DC: National Immigration Forum, 2002. For examples see Turnbull, Lornet, “Deportationon the rise in central Ohio; Minor traffic violations earn illegal immigrants a quick ticket home,” TheColumbus (Ohio) Dispatch, May 5, 2003, and Gregoire, Natasha, “Police Appeal For Clues In Slaying OfMom, Son,” Tampa Tribune, July 22, 2003.

10. See “The CLEAR Act: Dangerous Public Policy According to Police, Local Governments, OpinionLeaders, and Communities.” Washington, DC: National Immigration Forum, 2003.

11. See Waslin, Michele, Safe Roads, Safe Communities: Immigrants and State Driver’s LicenseRequirements, NCLR Issue Brief Number 6. Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza, May 2002.

12. 2003 Driver’s License Proposals. Washington, DC: National Immigration Law Center, 2003.http://www.nilc.org/immspbs/DLs/2003_DL_proposals_12-03.pdf.

13. Safe Roads, Safe Communities: Immigrants and State Driver’s License Requirements, op. cit.

Page 9


14. See Joge, Carmen and Sonia M. Pérez, The Mainstreaming of Hate: A Report on Latinos andHarassment, Hate Violence, and Law Enforcement Abuse in the ’90s. Washington, DC: NationalCouncil of La Raza, 1999.

15. Statement on Terrorism, Immigration, and Civil Rights presented by Charles Kamasaki, NationalCouncil of La Raza, before the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, DC, Oct. 12,2001.

16. Ibid.

17. Wald, Matthew L., “Officials Arrest 104 Airport Workers in Washington Area,” New York Times, April 24,2002.

18. The Latino Agenda on Immigration Issues (working title). National Hispanic Leadership Agenda,forthcoming 2004.

19. Lopez v. the City of Rogers, U.S. District Court Case No. 01-5061.

20. U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division “Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal LawEnforcement Officials,” June 2003.

21. The Latino Agenda on Immigration Issues, op. cit.

Page 10


Like all Americans,Hispanics are concernedabout crime and the effects

it has on youth and families. Arelated issue is that some Latinoshave experienced an unfair,arbitrary criminal and juvenilejustice system. Moreover, violentcrimes, public offenses, andineffective responses to substanceabuse, coupled with thedisproportionate number ofLatinos serving long and, in somecases, unjust prison sentences fornonviolent offenses, contribute tothe negative perception thatLatinos have of the criminaljustice system1 and hurt thenation as a whole.

There are many factors associatedwith the overrepresentation ofHispanics in the criminal justicesystem, including inadequateeducation levels and high poverty.Another factor especially relevantfor Latino and African Americanyouth is that they tend to live inurban areas with few resources,and often lack sufficientopportunities for sports, recreation,or other activities that would deter

them from involvement in thoseactivities that lead to interactingwith the criminal and juvenilejustice systems. Additionally, oneof the most importantcontributing factors for theoverrepresentation of Latinos inthe criminal justice system isracial profiling.2 Moreover,certain broad policies, including“tough on crime” and “the war ondrugs,” have clear,disproportionate, negative effectson Hispanics and otherminorities. In general, publicpolicy has not adequatelyaddressed the factors that lead tocriminal activity, nor has itresponded to the injustices of thecurrent criminal justice system.All of these dynamics have a directcorrelation with the increasedlikelihood of Latinos coming intocontact with the criminal justicesystem.

Data and ResearchHighlightsThere are several reasons for theLatino community to beconcerned about the U.S. criminaland juvenile justice systems:

Disproportionate incarceration ofLatinos. Overall, between 1985and 1997, minorities accountedfor approximately 70% of newinmates admitted into the prisonpopulation.3 Data show thatLatinos constituted almost one infive (19.9%) of all thoseincarcerated in the U.S. in 2002,4

while in federal prison alone theyconstituted nearly one in three(31.9%).5 Latinos also representthe fastest-growing segment ofthe U.S. prison population, andLatino men are almost four timesas likely as non-Hispanic Whitemales to be sentenced to prisonduring their lifetime.6

Overrepresentation among typesof convictions. Although Latinosare no more likely than otherracial/ethnic groups to use illegaldrugs, and less likely to usealcohol,7 they aredisproportionately likely to beconvicted for drug offenses.8

According to data provided by theUnited States SentencingCommission, Hispanics accountedfor 43.4% of the total drugoffenders convicted in 2000 –more than three times the

Page 11


Criminal JusticeBY ANGELA M. ARBOLEDA, CIVIL RIGHTS POLICY ANALYST

Overview

proportion of Latinos in thegeneral population.9 Nearly three-quarters of Latino federal prisoninmates are incarcerated for drugoffenses, the largest proportion ofany group.10 Moreover, in 1999,one-quarter of defendants chargedwith a drug offense in the federalsystem were identified asnoncitizens.11

Stereotypes regarding Latinos inthe criminal justice system.While there is a perception thatLatinos are more likely thanWhites to commit crimes or thatthose in the system are morelikely to be involved in violentcrimes, data suggest otherwise.

■ Among the federal prisonpopulation, the overwhelmingmajority of incarceratedLatinos are convicted forrelatively minor, nonviolentoffenses, are first-timeoffenders, or both.12 In 2001,Hispanics represented 7.2% ofviolent offenders and 13.1% ofproperty offenders, comparedto non-Hispanics representing92.8% of violent offenders and86.9% of property offenders.13

■ Hispanic federal prisoninmates were the least likelyto re-offend. As Figure 1shows, in 1997, 11.7 % ofHispanic federal prison

inmates committed anotherviolent crime, compared to29.1% of their Black and25.5% of their Whitecounterparts. About one inthree Latinos (35.8%)relapsed to commit anonviolent offense, comparedto 42.1% of Blacks and 36.7%of Whites.

Harsh treatment. Hispanics aretreated more harshly and receivelonger sentences than non-Hispanic Whites, even when theyare charged with the same typesof offenses. Hispanic defendantswere about one-quarter (22.7%)as likely as non-Hispanic

Page 12


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Hispanic Black White

Violent Nonviolent

*Date for which most recent data are available.Source: Correctional Populations in the United States, 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, November 2000.

FIG

UR

E 1 Violent and Nonviolent Repeat Offenders

Among the Federal Prison Inmate Population, by Race/Ethnicity, 1997*

Perc

enta

ge (

%)

defendants to be released beforetrial,14 even though Hispanicdefendants were the least likely ofall ethnic/racial groups to have acriminal history.15 For thoseconvicted of violent offenses,Hispanics served prison sentencesthat were 14 months longer, onaverage, than their non-Hispaniccounterparts.16 Treatment ofyouth is a particular concern. Asdescribed in a 1993 report fromthe National Council on Crimeand Delinquency,17 among youthwith no prior admissions to statefacilities, Latinos received moresevere sentences than Whites inseveral crime categories. Forexample, Latino youths areadmitted at a rate 13 times that ofWhite youth for drug sentences.18

Furthermore, regarding violentoffenses, the rate of admissionsfor Latino youth was more thanfive times the rate of Whiteyouth.19

Significant and discriminatorysentencing disparities in thecurrent sentencing guidelines fordrug offenses. The currentpowder-crack sentencing disparityshows blatant discrimination;20

minority communities aredisproportionately representedamong crack cocaine offenders,compared to powder cocaineoffenders. For example, aconviction for possessing fivegrams of crack cocaine triggers a

five-year mandatory minimumsentence, while it takes 500 gramsof powder cocaine possession totrigger the same sentence. Andwhile possession of 50 grams ofcrack cocaine triggers a ten-yearmandatory minimum sentence,the law requires possession of5,000 grams of powder cocaine totrigger the same sentence. Inother words, a person has to havein his/her possession 100 timesmore cocaine than crack toreceive the same sentence.

Unequal prison releases.Racial/ethnic data show that, in1999, 42.4% of prisoners releasedfrom prison were Hispanic and73.3% were White.21 Moreover,Hispanic adults were less likelythan other racial/ethnic groups tobe on probation in 2000.22

Unreliable or inaccurate datacollection. Some data existregarding Latinos in the criminaljustice system. However, manyagencies do not collect data basedon ethnicity, so Hispanics arecounted with the “White”population or may be considered“other.” The inconsistent orincorrect compilation of data onthe race and ethnicity of those inthe criminal justice systemsuggests that there is not acomprehensive understanding ofthe experience of Latinos in thesystem, and that there may alsobe underreporting. Consequently,

Latinos may be shortchanged withrespect to relevant programs andfunds.23

Other ConcernsThere are three other issuesrelated to the criminal justicearena which need to be addressed:

Racial profiling. The tendencyamong some law enforcementofficials to rely on race, ethnicity,or national origin to establish acause for suspicion of a crime hasplayed a dominant role in the risein the share of Latinos in prison.Racial profiling is carried out inthe streets and in the workplacethrough traffic and pedestrianstops, search and seizures, andworkplace raids. For example, inthe early 1990s, an investigation ofthe practices of the Volusia County,Florida Sheriff’s Departmentrevealed that, although Hispanicsand Blacks accounted for only 5%of the drivers on a portion ofInterstate 95 that ran through thecounty, they constituted nearly70% of drivers stopped on thatstretch of highway. Hispanics andBlacks were not only stoppedmore than Whites, they werestopped for longer periods of timethan Whites.24

Latinos have been systematicallytargeted for “dragnet” tactics bylocal and state law enforcementofficers, and those same tactics

Page 13


have been applied and used, as amatter of formal policy, by somefederal law enforcement agents.25

NCLR has received reports fromLatino individuals who have beenvictimized by police and federalagents overstepping the bounds ofthe Constitution in the name ofdrug and immigrationenforcement. The vast majorityof cases, however, go unreported.Even fewer actually result insuccessful civil rights litigationor investigation by agenciesresponsible for enforcing civilrights.26

Lack of access to treatmentprograms in prison. A JusticeDepartment study has estimatedthat about 70% to 80% of stateprison inmates are in need ofsubstance abuse treatment, butonly about 15% completetreatment programs before theyare released. Furthermore,Hispanic federal prison inmates in1997 were the least likely of allracial/ethnic groups to receive anytype of substance abusetreatment; only 36.4% of Hispanicfederal prison inmates receivedsubstance abuse treatment orparticipated in a program toaddress their substance abusedependency.27 Language barriersrepresent an important factorresponsible for the lack of accessto treatment programs for Latinos.

Since prison personnel do notcorrectly identify Latino offendersrequiring treatment, thoseneeding such services neverreceive them. Moreover, the lackof adequate bilingual servicesmakes it difficult, if notimpossible, to communicate aboutjustice system procedures,potential treatment programs,counseling services, and aftercareplans with family members whodo not speak English. In addition,the criminal justice system’s lackof resources to respond to theneeds of its prison population alsoaffects its ability to providesufficient treatment services.

Alternatives to incarceration. Theuse of drug treatment programsand other prevention programshas been found to reduce crimerates. Researchers found that, allelse being equal, drug treatmentprograms reduced drug-relatedcrime rate by 54%.28 Drug courts,which place nonviolent drugoffenders into intensive,community-based treatment,rehabilitation, and supervisionprograms, have shown significantresults. For example, Texas drugcourt participants havesignificantly lower two-yearrecidivism rates for arrest (19.5%)and incarceration (1%) comparedto offenders not participating inthe drug court program (46.9%

for arrest and 19.7% forincarceration).29 Prisons cannotmake the same claims.

The latest report on drug courtsfrom the Office of JusticePrograms at the U.S. Departmentof Justice shows that recidivismrates continue to be significantlyreduced (by 2% to 20%) forgraduates of substance abusetreatment programs.Interestingly, recidivism isreduced even for individuals whobegin but do not completetreatment programs.30 As thesedata indicate, substance abusetreatment programs are a steptoward ending the cycle ofrecurrent crime.

Community-level treatment andprevention programs have beenproven especially effective.Community-based organizationsthat provide family-basedtreatment and prevention services– including substance abuse,mental health, and parentalinteraction programs – are morelikely to report faster recoveryrates and a decreased likelihood ofreturning to crime,31 suggestingthat a personal setting and a focuson community/family assistanceprovide a better support systemfor recovering drug offenders thanthe prison population.

Page 14


RecommendationsNCLR and the Latino communitybelieve that people should be heldaccountable for the crimes theycommit, but also believe that thepunishment received should fitthe crime committed. NCLRseeks to promote a criminaljustice system that not only fightscriminals, but is also guided bythe principles of fairness andequality. To that end, NCLRsupports crime preventionpolicies, diversion and substanceabuse treatment programs, andappropriate prison sentences forthose individuals who pose a realthreat to society. To address thekey concerns outlined above,NCLR recommends:

■ Efforts requiring themandatory collection andpublication of disaggregateddata by each state’sprosecutor’s office. The datawould disclose the charging,sentencing practices, andoutcomes in those offices, andthe racial/ethnic impact ofthose outcomes. Thus, foreach case, the prosecutorshould be required todocument the race/ethnicityof the victim and defendant,the basis for the initialcharging decision, the basisfor the prosecutor’s bailrecommendation, each plea

offer made (accepted orrejected), and the basis for theprosecutor’s sentencingrecommendations.

■ Legislation to end racialprofiling. Legislation isneeded at the federal, state,and local levels to ban thepractice of racial profiling bylaw enforcement agencies.Additionally, legislationshould require the collectionof data about racial profilingand should establishprocedures for receiving,investigating, and respondingto claims of racial profiling.Furthermore, legislationshould require training of lawenforcement agents andmechanisms to hold themaccountable for engaging inracial profiling. One specificproposal, the “End RacialProfiling Act of 2004,” wouldban the practice of racialprofiling by federal lawenforcement agencies andprovide incentives to state andlocal law enforcementagencies to eliminate thispractice.

■ Moving away from mandatoryminimum sentences,particularly for minor drugoffenses. For example, NCLRurges that the crack/powdercocaine sentences be

equalized as much as possibleby raising to the greatestallowable extent the level thattriggers penalties for crackcocaine. However, NCLRbelieves that the only properway of equalizing the ratio isby raising the crack threshold,and not by lowering thepowder threshold.

■ Increased resources forsubstance abuse treatment,prevention, and research.Three sets of enhancementare needed:

■ Funding and outreach toLatino community-basedorganizations. TheSubstance Abuse andMental Health ServicesAdministration’s (SAMHSA)federal block grant fundingenables states to maintainand enhance substanceabuse and mental healthservices and to help improvethe quality and availabilityof substance abuseprevention, addictiontreatment, and mentalhealth services nationwide.

■ Grants for comprehensivestate and local prison drugtreatment programs. NCLRcalls for widespread civilvoluntary substance abusetreatment, education, and

Page 15


reentry programs thatwould prepare inmates tofunction in society andprevent recidivism.Additional programs forformer inmates are alsoneeded to help them findjobs, housing, drugtreatment, emotional

counseling, and othercritical services in theirneighborhoods.

■ Funds for alternativemethods of punishment fornonviolent, low-level drugoffenders. Drug courts –for individuals who do not

pose a threat to society –offer one alternative thatnot only encouragestreatment and lowerrecidivism rates, but alsoalleviates the workloadfaced by judges,prosecutors, and othercourt staff.

Page 16


Notes1. Latinos generally feel that the justice system is not “in touch” with their community. In 1999, 54% of

Hispanics agreed with the statement, “Courts are out of touch with their community,” compared to66% of Blacks and 39% of Whites. How the Public Views the State Court – A 1999 National Survey.Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1999.

2. Weich, Ron H. and Carlos T. Angulo, Justice on Trial. Washington, DC: Leadership Conference on CivilRights, July 2000.

3. Gilliard, Darrell K. and Allen J. Beck, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1997. Washington, DC:Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 1998.

4. Harrison, Paige M. and Jennifer C. Karberg, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002. Washington, DC:Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 2003.

5. Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 2001. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics,November 2003.

6. Bonczar, Thomas. P and Allen J. Beck, Lifetime Likelihood of Going to State or Federal Prison.Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 1997.

7. 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Washington, DC: Substance Abuse and Mental HealthServices Administration, Office of Applied Studies.

8. Arboleda, Angela, Latinos and the Federal Criminal Justice System. Washington DC: National Councilof La Raza, July 2002.

9. U.S. Sentencing Commission, Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy. Washington, DC, May 2002.

10. Testimony on Drug Sentencing and its Effects on the Latino Community, presented by CharlesKamasaki, National Council of La Raza, before the United States Sentencing Commission, Washington,DC, February 25, 2002.

11. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Federal Drug Offenders, 1999, with Trends1984-99. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 2001.

12. Testimony on Drug Sentencing and its Effects on the Latino Community, op. cit.

13. Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 2001. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics,November 2003.

14. Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 1999. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, May2000.

15. Federal Pretrial Release and Detention, 1996. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, February1999.

Page 17


16. Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 1999, op. cit.

17. The Juveniles Taken into Custody Research Program: Estimating the Prevalence of Justice CustodyRates by Race and Gender. Washington, DC: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1993.

18. Villarruel, Francisco A., and Nancy E. Walker, ¿Dónde Esta La Justicia? Washington, DC: BuildingBlocks For Youth, 2002.

19. Ibid.

20. Testimony on Drug Sentencing and its Effects on the Latino Community, op. cit.

21. Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 1999, op. cit.

22. Probation and Parole in the United Sates, 2000. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, August2001.

23. Walker, Nancy E., J. Michael Senger, and Francisco A. Villarruel, Lost Opportunities: The Reality ofLatinos in the U.S. Criminal Justice System (Working Title). Washington, DC: National Council of LaRaza, forthcoming 2004.

24. Angulo, C. and R. Weich, Wrong Then, Wrong Now. Washington, DC: Leadership Conference on CivilRights, February 2003.

25. Joge, Carmen T. and Sonia M. Pérez, The Mainstreaming of Hate: A Report on Latinos andHarassment, Hate Violence, and Law Enforcement Abuse in the ’90s. Washington, DC: NationalCouncil of La Raza, 1999.

26. Testimony on Racial Profiling, submitted by Raul Yzaguirre, National Council of La Raza, before theSenate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights, Washington, DC,August 1, 2001.

27. Correctional Populations in the United States, 1997, op. cit.

28. Jofre-Bonet, M. and J. L. Sindelar, “Drug Treatment as a Crime Fighting Tool,” cited in RacialDisparities in the Texas Criminal Justice System. Austin, TX: Steward Research Group, May 2002.

29. Racial Disparities in the Texas Criminal Justice System, op. cit.

30. Office of Justice Programs, Recidivism Rates for Drug Court Graduates: Nationally-based Estimates.Washington DC: Department of Justice, July 2003.

31. Arboleda, Angela, Treatment for Nonviolent Drug Offenders Makes Sense for Latinos, and All Texans,Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza, June 2003.

Page 18


The portrait of Hispaniceducation today is mixed.While there have been

some gains in school completionrates, college enrollment, andoverall achievement, compared toother racial/ethnic groups Latinosare more likely to start schoollater and leave school earlier. Theresulting – and persistently large– education gap between Latinosand their peers continues to bethe most critical issue facing theHispanic community. It isparticularly troubling at a timewhen the economy demandsgreater levels of educationalattainment and specific skillpreparation. Moreover, it isworrisome since, after Whites,Latinos are the second-largestsegment of the U.S. schoolpopulation.

There are many factors associatedwith the poor status of Latinoeducation, including high povertyrates of Hispanic families andtheir propensity to live insegregated communities that tendto have poorly-funded,overcrowded schools, poor

facilities, and teachers withinadequate preparation.Additionally, Latino students arenot always exposed to rigorouscoursework or placed on a collegepreparatory track. In some cases,Latino parents lack the resourcesto help their children in school orneed support to be effectiveadvocates for their children’seducation. From a policyperspective, lack of political willand insufficient attention havecontributed to stagnating Latinoeducation trends. To exacerbatethis, programs with the potentialto improve schooling for Latinoshave not been funded adequately,do not serve Latinos effectively, orare not receiving sufficientsupport from Congress and theAdministration.

Data and ResearchHighlightsThere are several critical issuesrelevant to the status of Latinoeducation, as discussed below.

Increase in Latino share of theU.S. school-age population. U.S.Census data confirm that, in the

next ten years, a significant shareof America’s schools will belargely composed of Hispanicchildren. Hispanic children under18 years of age are now thesecond-largest group of students,after non-Hispanic Whites.Between 1990 and 2000, thepopulation of Hispanic childrenand youth under 18 reached 12.3million.1 Furthermore, thenumber of Latino childrenattending U.S. schools has grownsignificantly over the last 25years. In 1975, three millionLatinos were attending public andprivate schools. By 2000, morethan 8.1 million Latinos wereenrolled in K-12 schools, asFigure 2 illustrates.2

Although Latinos continue to beconcentrated in five states(California, Texas, New York,Florida, and Illinois), the Latinopopulation has also expanded tonew areas of the country and, as aresult, Hispanic students are agrowing presence in schools inevery region of the U.S. Forexample, the proportion ofHispanic K-12 public school

Page 19


EducationBY MIRIAM CALDERÓN, EDUCATION POLICY ANALYST;

RAÚL GONZÁLEZ, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR; AND MELISSA LAZARÍN, EDUCATION POLICY ANALYST

Overview

students in the West, in states suchas Arizona, California, Colorado,Idaho, and Oregon, grew from14.8% in 1975 to 31.6% in 2000.During that same period, theHispanic public school studentpopulation also increased in statesin the South (from 6.6% to16.0%), including Arkansas,Georgia, Kentucky, NorthCarolina, Tennessee, Virginia, andthe District of Columbia; in theNortheast (from 6.1% to 11.4%),in places such as Connecticut,Massachusetts, New York, andPennsylvania; and in the Midwest(from 1.6% to 5.5%), includingIllinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,Nebraska, and Wisconsin.3

Disparities in Hispaniceducational experiences.Unfortunately, a large share ofHispanic children attends schoolswith myriad, interrelatedproblems. For example:

■ Inadequate funding. Schoolsserving Hispanic and otherdisadvantaged students spenton average $966 less perstudent in 2000 than didschools with few childrenfrom low-income homes.4

■ Poor teacher quality. Theunderfunding of schoolsserving Hispanics makes itdifficult to recruit and retainqualified teachers, which

heavily influences the qualityof instruction these studentsreceive. For example,minority eighth-grade mathstudents are more likely thanWhite students to haveteachers who do not have anundergraduate degree inmathematics.5 In California,the state with the largestHispanic student population,nearly nine in ten (89%)schools in which 20% ormore of the teachers are“underqualified” serve astudent body that is majoritystudents of color.6

Page 20


3,245

3,674

4,323

5,213

6,846

8,164

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 1975-2000.

FIG

UR

E 2 K-12 Public and Private School Enrollment,

Hispanic Students, 1975-2000

Enr

ollm

ent (

in th

ousa

nds)

■ Undemanding coursework.Schools attended by Hispanicand other economicallydisadvantaged students areless likely to provide rigorouseducation coursework thatprepares these students topursue postsecondaryopportunities.7 Latino andAfrican American students areless likely than Whites to beplaced in education trackswith rigorous curricula thatadequately prepare them tomeet performance andcontent standards and go onto college.8 For example,about one in five Latino andAfrican American eighth-grade students takes algebra,compared to more than onein four of their White peers.9

Among 17-year-olds, only 8%of Hispanics and 4% of Blackshave taken precalculus orcalculus, compared to 15% ofWhites.10

Inadequate investments inHispanic children have producedenormous achievement andattainment gaps. Currentachievement and attainment databear this out. For example, 2000data show:

■ Hispanic fourth-gradersscored at 197 on the NationalAssessment of EducationalProgress (NAEP) reading

test (on a scale of 0-500). Incomparison, White fourth-graders scored at 225 on theNAEP reading test that year.11

Similarly, Hispanic fourth-graders scored at 209 on theNAEP math test compared to235 for White fourth-graderson a scale of 0-500.12

■ About six in ten (64.1%)Hispanics ages 18 through24 have completed highschool. By comparison, morethan eight in ten Blacks(83.7%) and nine in tenWhites (91.8%) of the sameage group completed highschool.13

■ Among 16- to 24-year-olds,the proportion of youngadults who were not inschool and who had notgraduated (regardless of whenthey last attended school) was27.8% for Hispanics, morethan twice that for Blacks(13.1%) and more than fourtimes that for Whites (6.9%).Moreover, in 2000, Hispanicsaccounted for 38.6% of alldropouts.14

■ Hispanics composed 15.1%and Whites accounted for65.3% of the total U.S.population aged 16 through24.15 However, amongstudents of the same agegroup enrolled in college in

2000, less than one in ten(9.4%) was Hispanic and morethan seven in ten (71.0%)were non-Hispanic White.16

■ Only one in ten (10.8%)Hispanics ages 25 years andover had received a bachelor’sdegree or higher. Incomparison, almost three inten Whites (27.7%) of thesame age group had obtaineda bachelor’s degree orhigher.17

Early childhood education.Research has consistently shownthat access to high-quality earlychildhood education can have apositive impact on the schoolcareers of children, particularlythose from low-incomehouseholds. Unfortunately,Latinos are less likely than theirAfrican American and White peersto participate in early childhoodeducation programs. Forexample, in 2001, fewer than fourin ten (36.2%) poor Hispanicchildren ages three to five wereenrolled in early childhood careand education programs, while60.1% of poor Black and 46.1% ofpoor White children of the sameage group were enrolled in theseprograms, as shown in Figure 3.18

In addition, while 30% of poorchildren under age five wereLatino in 1999,19 that year Latinosrepresented only 23.7% of

Page 21


children in Head Start, thenation’s premier federally-fundedearly childhood educationprogram that provideseconomically disadvantagedchildren and families witheducation, health, and othersupport services.20

English language learners(ELLs). During the 2000-2001school year, there were a reported4.7 million ELL students enrolledin public schools, representing9.8% of the total K-12 publicschool enrollment. Thisrepresents a 95% growth since the1991-92 academic year.21 Latinosmake up nearly eight in ten (79%)

of all ELLs.22 In the past severalfiscal years, federal funding forbilingual education has neitherbeen adequate for or consistentwith the growing number ofELLs. For example, the annualappropriation for bilingualeducation grew from $188 millionin fiscal year (FY) 1990 to $398million in FY 2000.23 While theNo Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)24

authorizes bilingual educationprograms at $750 million, theseprograms only received $685million in FY 2003. Moreover, theBush Administration asked for a$20 million cut in bilingualeducation for FY 2004. Thus,while the number of ELLs

increased by more than 2.2million students over this period,funding for bilingual educationhas risen by about $258 million,providing only $87 per ELL child.Education experts estimate that$361 per child is necessary todevelop and implement programsfor ELLs.

In 2000, there were about 47million students in U.S. schools ingrades K-12;25 16.6% were Latino.That year, there were 3,598,451Spanish-speaking ELLs and7,810,466 Latino students in total.Therefore, we can estimate that46% of Latino students are ELLs.26

Page 22


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Hispanic 34.4 30.1 36.2

White 41 43.4 46.1

Black 55.4 54.9 60.1

1991 1995 2001

Source: National Center for Education Statistics. National Household Education Surveys Program,"Parent Interview"Survey, selected years, U.S. Department of Education.

FIG

UR

E 3 Percentage of Low-Income Children Ages 3-5 Enrolled in

Center-Based Early Childhood Care and Education Programs, by Race/Ethnicity, 1991, 1995, 2001

Perc

enta

ge (

%)

Immigrant students. Accordingto estimates by the UrbanInstitute, 65,000 immigrantstudents who have grown up inthe United States, attended the

same elementary and secondaryschools as native-born students,and excelled at the same academicrequirements as their classmatesare unable to pursue a higher

education.27 Many of these youngpeople are accepted intopostsecondary institutions, butcannot afford to attend becausethey have to pay out-of-state or

Page 23


There is agreement that parent participation is important toensure the success of reform efforts, such as standards-basedreforms embodied in the NCLB.a Given that Latino students

are concentrated in low-performing schools that will be requiredto raise standards, Latino parents and communities should beincluded in the development of standards-based reforms. In fact,83% of Latinos, compared to 74% of Americans overall, stronglybelieve that parents should be able to compare local academicstandards to national recommendations.b

While the heart of the NCLB is its system of accountability andassessments, parents are the backbone of this legislation. Underthe NCLB, schools are required to assess student progress, giveparents information about test scores, and provide parents ofstudents in underperforming schools with options, including theright to transfer to another school and the opportunity to obtainextra tutoring for their children. More importantly, the NCLBassumes that parents, “armed with information and options,” willforce schools to improve.c However, it is unclear that parents arereceiving sufficient information about their schools to holdschools accountable or to exercise various options. For example,although 96% of Americans with school-aged children believe thatparents should be familiar with the academic standards in their

children’s schools, only 38% of Latino parents believe that schoolsare adequately providing this information.d

To help prepare parents to meet their obligations and takeadvantage of their options, Congress authorized in the NCLB LocalFamily Information Centers (LFICs). LFICs are community-basedcenters that provide parents of economically disadvantagedstudents, including ELLs, with information about their children’sschools so that they can hold their local and state school officialsaccountable and exercise options available under the NCLB.Unfortunately, since enactment of the NCLB, the BushAdministration has never requested a single dollar for LFICs,severely weakening implementation of the NCLB.

As the Latino student population increases, Latino parents willplay a larger role in ensuring that the nation’s public schools aresuccessful. Many of these parents are immigrants who hold highhopes for their children’s education.e Unfortunately, Hispanicparents are often underrepresented in parental involvementprograms.f Moreover, immigrant parents are undemanding andseldom critical of the schools their children attend.g Thus, it isvital that new models of parental involvement are identified andused in schools, including models that utilize community-basedorganizations with a track record of providing services to Latinos.

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

a. Johnson, Joseph, “Assessment as a Tool for Improving Student Achievement,” Support for Texas Academic Renewal (STAR) Center at the Charles A. DanaCenter website: http://www.starcenter.org/products/articles/assessmentool.html.

b. Ibid.

c. Paige, Rod, “It’s Not About the Money,” Wall Street Journal, October 29, 2003.

d. Findings From the Council for Basic Education’s National Poll of Public Attitudes Toward Rigorous Academic Standards. Washington, DC: Council forBasic Education, 1998.

e. Ruiz de Velasco, Jorge, Michael Fix, and Beatriz Chu Clewell, Overlooked and Underserved: Immigrant Students in U.S. Secondary Schools. Washington,DC: Urban Institute, December 2000.

f. National PTA Quick Facts, Hispanic Outreach Initiative. Washington, DC: National PTA, 2003 (available on the web:http://www.pta.org/aboutpta/pressroom/quick.asp)

g. Overlooked and Underserved, op. cit.

international tuition rates; theIllegal Immigration Reform andImmigrant Responsibility Act of1996 (IIRIRA) makes it difficultfor states to provide its residentswho are undocumentedimmigrants with in-state tuitionrates and other postsecondarybenefits. The impact of currentpolicies is immense: lack of accessto college contributes to thealready high Hispanic dropoutrate,28 and tax revenues lost bystate and federal governments dueto an undereducated workforceare enormous. In fact, an analysisby the Texas House ResearchOrganization on legislation toprovide immigrant students within-state tuition rates shows thatthe cost of not educating thesechildren is $319 billion.29

RecommendationsNCLR seeks to increase theachievement and attainmentlevels of Latino children, reducethe persistent and significantdisparities between them andtheir peers, and ensureeducational opportunity for allLatino youth. Several key

measures and policies throughoutthe “education pipeline” addressthese concerns, including:

■ Full funding in the FY 2005education appropriationslegislation for No Child LeftBehind Act programs thatcan have a significant impacton Latino students.Additional funding wouldtranslate as follows: $1.2billion for LanguageAssistance State Grants wouldamount to $255 for each ELLchild in U.S. schools, anincrease of about $110 perchild over the FY 2003amount; $100 million forParent Assistance programswould allow community-basedLFICs to help parentsunderstand their rights andresponsibilities under theNCLB; and $100 millionrepresents less than half of1% of overall funding forNCLB, but would greatlyincrease the likelihood thatthis massive federal law willbe properly implemented atthe local level.

■ Head Start Actreauthorization proposalsthat seek to increaseHispanic participation. Thisincludes strengthening the“Community Assessment”provision of the law to holdgrantees accountable forserving eligible children intheir communities. Inaddition, while Head Start is asuccessful program, it can beimproved for ELLs.

■ Legislation at the state andfederal levels, which wouldfacilitate access to highereducation and legalization forU.S.-raised immigrantstudents. Specifically,support of the “Development,Relief, and Education forAlien Minors (DREAM) Act of2003” (S. 1545) in the Senateand the “Student AdjustmentAct” (H.R. 1684) in the Houseof Representatives is critical.

Page 24


Notes1. U.S. Census Bureau, Differences in Population by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin, for the United States:

1990 to 2000, April 2001.

2. National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education 2002. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, 2002.

3. Ibid.

4. Brennan, Jean, ed., The Funding Gap: Low-Income and Minority Students Receive Fewer Dollars.Washington, DC: The Education Trust, August 2002.

5. Haycock, Kati, Thinking K-16: Good Teaching Matters...A Lot. Washington, DC: The Education Trust, 1998.

6. Harris, Louis, Survey of the Status of Equality in Public Education in California: A Survey of a Cross-Section of Public School Teachers, prepared for Public Advocates, March 2002.

7. Haycock, Kati, Craig Jerald, and Sandra Huang, Thinking K-16, Closing the Gap: Done in a Decade.Washington, DC: The Education Trust, Spring 2001.

8. Ibid.

9. Education Watch: The Education Trust 1998 State and National Data Book. Washington, DC: TheEducation Trust, 1998.

10. National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of StudentPerformance. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, August 2000.

11. National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card: Reading Highlights 2003. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Education, November 2003.

12. National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics Highlights 2003.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, November 2003.

13. National Center for Education Statistics, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, November 2001.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, “School Enrollment – Social and EconomicCharacteristics of Students.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000.

17. Ibid.

18. U.S. Bureau of the Census, October Current Population Survey, 1975-2000. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Commerce.

19. American FactFinder, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.

Page 25


20. Head Start Fact Sheet, Administration for Children and Families, 2000. NCLR excludes all Puerto Rico HeadStart enrollees in its calculations to compare with national poverty statistics that do not take into accountPuerto Rico when measuring Latino child poverty.

21. The Growing Number of Limited English Proficient Students: 1991/92-2001/02. Washington, DC: NationalClearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs, October2002.

22. Language Backgrounds of Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students in the U.S. and Outlying Areas, 2000-2001. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language InstructionEducational Programs, May 2002.

23. Education Department Budget History Table, U.S. Department of Education Website:www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html?src=rt

24. NCLB, signed into law in 2002, contains provisions that strengthen the federal program for ELL students,now called Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students. Specifically, theNCLB requires schools to help ELLs make strides in acquiring English and improving their reading andmath skills.

25. The Condition of Education 2002, op. cit.

26. The Growing Number of Limited English Proficient Students: 1991/92-2001/02, op. cit.

27. Urban Institute, Further Demographic Information Relating to the DREAM Act, October 21, 2003(unpublished).

28. For example, more than 50 communities in 34 states participated in a “National Week of Action” in April2003 by holding press conferences, rallies, and vigils in support of the DREAM Act. At a “Back-to-School”event in September 2003, more than 30 students from 25 states traveled to Washington, DC to meet withMembers of Congress and advocate for passage of the DREAM Act.

29. Texas House Research Organization Bill Analysis of HB 1403, April 18, 2001.

Page 26


One of the most significantcontributions Latinosmake to the U.S. is their

participation in the labor force.Over the past several decades,Latino men consistently havebeen the most likely of allAmericans to be working orlooking for work. Moreover,demographic shifts mean thatLatinos represent an increasingshare of workers and taxpayers.Unfortunately, the employmentstatus of a significant segment ofLatinos is characterized by low-skilled jobs at inadequate wageswith few benefits. Moreover, thesejobs are often vulnerable todisplacement resulting fromchanges in the economy.

The heavy concentration of Latinoworkers in these types of jobsresults from several factors,including poor educationalattainment and insufficient orincorrect preparation for thecurrent labor market, pooremployment networks throughwhich to seek other opportunities,geographic location in regions ofthe country that have suffered

economic downturns andeconomic restructuring, andemployment discrimination.1 Thecombination of these dynamicshas relegated a sizeable share ofLatinos to the bottom of theeconomic ladder. Theconsequences for these Hispanicworkers and their families havebeen unstable employment, lowwages, limited economic mobility,slow accumulation of assets, andhigh poverty, especially amongworking families with children.

Data and ResearchHighlightsThe following issues are central todiscussions related to Latinoemployment:

A growing share of Latinoworkers. There are over 16million Hispanic workers in theU.S., and the overall Latino laborforce participation rate (68.7%)continues to be higher than thenational average (66.4%), asshown in Figure 4.2 In the nextdecade and beyond, when the 35%of Latinos currently under 18years of age enter the labor force,

Latino workers will become evenmore integral to the U.S.economy, not only in terms oflabor force productivity but alsoin taxes paid to supportgovernment services and inconsumer spending. For example,the latest Department of LaborBureau of Labor Statistics’projections show that the numberof Latino workers will grow by36.3% this decade.3 Additionally,other data show that Hispanicpurchasing power has nowreached over $575 billion and isprojected to grow to over $900billion by 2007.4

High unemployment. Given theirhigh labor force participation inlow-wage and low-skilled sectors –such as the households segmentof the service industry where, in2001, nearly one in threeemployees (31.3%)5 was Hispanic– Latinos are very vulnerable toeconomic downturns. Since thebeginning of the most recentrecession in March 2001, thenumber of unemployed Hispanicshas increased by 16% to 1.25million as of January 2004.

Page 27


EmploymentBY SUE LIU, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT POLICY ANALYST; AND

ERIC RODRIGUEZ, DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC MOBILITY PROJECT

Overview

Currently, the Latinounemployment rate stands at7.3% compared to 4.9% and 10%for White and Black workers,respectively.

Level and range of skillsdemanded by the current market.Despite their invaluablecontributions to the U.S.economy, Latino workers face arange of challenges in the labormarket that prevent many fromrealizing fully the fruit of theirlabor and climbing the economicladder. A disproportionatenumber of Latino workers lacksufficient academic and skillstraining preparation – key

predictors to economic success.As a result, they have feweropportunities for advancementinto higher paying careers. Forexample, in 1998, more than twoin five Latinos did not graduatefrom high school, and only one inten Latinos attended college.6 Inaddition, for a disproportionatelylarge number of Latino adults,language barriers pose a significantchallenge to their careeradvancement opportunities. Overone-quarter (27.8%) of theworking-age (18 to 64 years old)Latino population speaks Englishless than “well.”7 Studies haveshown that English fluency,independent of vocational

qualifications, corresponds toearnings that are 24% higher thanfor those who lack fluency in oraland written English.8

Training for the nation’s workers.The Workforce Investment Act(WIA) of 1998, the major sourceof funding for this nation’s skillstraining and English acquisition,does not adequately address thetraining needs of the Latinoworkforce, and implementation ofcurrent law has been problematicfor Latinos. For example:

■ Training services are oftenoffered to clients based on a“work first” philosophy.Because clients are offered

Page 28


40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75%

Overall Population

White

Black

Hispanic

Percent

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Employment Situation: May 2003, Tables A-1, A-2 and A-3. U.S.Department of Labor.

FIG

UR

E 4 Labor Force Participation Rates, by Race/Ethnicity, 2003

Rac

e/E

thni

city

services only if they cannotfind employment, the “workfirst” system makes itchallenging to gainmeaningful skills or increasetheir language acquisition.Additionally, this approachoften creates limited access totraining services, especiallyfor Latino immigrantsbecause language instructionand training are oftenaccessible only if otherservices have been exhausted.

■ Data show that there is not amatch between Latino clientsand access to training,considering the nationwidedemographic changes relatedto the presence of Hispanicsin the labor force during thepast decade. According toU.S. Department of Labor(DOL) 2000 program data,20,990 out of 102,663 adults’training slots were offered toHispanics (20.4%), comparedto 21,955 slots for Blacks(21.4%) and 54,229 (52.8%)for Whites.9 Additionally,despite Congressionalallocations in FY 2000 ofnearly $2.5 billion in WIATitle I funds for job skillstraining to state and localareas, the DOL’s program datashow only 7% of all limited-English-proficient (LEP)adults (around 11,000

persons) received servicesthrough WIA.

■ The best approaches combinetraining for specific jobs andEnglish skills, but areinadequately funded.Research has shown that suchprograms have remarkableoutcomes – increasing theskills, English fluency, andearnings of immigrantworkers – but areinadequately funded in theworkforce system.10 Englishacquisition services, withexplicit employment andlearning outcomes, includingjob-specific training, areessential for moving LEPworkers up the economicladder.

■ Current funding for AdultBasic Education, includingEnglish-as-a-Second-Language, does not matchcurrent demographic changesand demand nationwide. TheAdult Basic Education (ABE)program, which fundsEnglish-as-a-SecondLanguage (ESL), civics, andother crucial adult educationservices, helps Latinos, manyof whom are LEP, gaininvaluable language and otherjob readiness skills. Despitethe effectiveness of ESL andother adult education servicesthat help Latino immigrants

learn English and increasetheir literacy levels, demandfor ESL in communitiesnationwide has outweighedthe existing supply.11 Inparticular, states withtraditionally large Latinopopulations, such as Illinois,New York, California, Florida,and Texas, as well as statesexperiencing new Latinopopulation growth, such asNorth Carolina, Tennessee,Georgia, and Iowa, facechallenges in addressingservice gaps that are notaccounted for in currentfunding.

■ Community-basedorganizations (CBOs) servingLatinos are shut out of theWIA system. Many CBOsprovide a wide range oflinguistically and culturallyappropriate services, such asESL and other adult literacyinstruction. Such services arecritical to improving theemployability of Latinos andLEP persons. Many CBOshave linguisticallyknowledgeable staff and aremore accessible to immigrantswith lower English proficiencythan other local agencies.However, CBO programs donot have adequate access tofunding from WIA. Forinstance, a survey of CBOs

Page 29


indicated that the majority ofclients served by CBOs do notaccess the federally-fundedworkforce system.

Recommendations NCLR supports specific provisionsin the reauthorization of WIAthat:

■ Increase the ability of all jobseekers, including personswith limited Englishproficiency, to enroll in anytype of training servicesbased on their specific jobtraining needs. Job seekers inthe WIA system are requiredto access services in order,with training and ESL oftenbeing offered as a last resort.Job seekers should be able toenroll in any type of trainingservices based on theirspecific needs.

■ Fund integrated workforcetraining programs includingan evaluation component.Integrated programs havepromising outcomes but arerarely funded out of the WIAsystem. The availability ofintegrated programs willassist local areas in meetingthe individual needs ofemployers and LEP workersin communities nationwide.

■ Support increases toeducation-related job trainingfunding for states with largenumbers of LEP persons andwith high growth rates ofLEP persons. Currentfunding for ESL and otherAdult Basic Educationservices are disproportionateto the needs of states withlarge numbers of LEP personsand high LEP growth.

■ Strengthen provisions thatfoster “direct and equitableaccess” to ensure that alleligible providers – includingCBOs – have equalopportunities to compete andapply for, and win, proposalsto provide adult literacyservices to communities withLEP populations. ManyLatino-serving CBOs provideessential adult literacyservices but are challenged inaccessing fundingopportunities. Direct andequitable access provisionswill level the playing field forall eligible providers.

Page 30


Notes1. Pérez, Sonia M., ed., Moving Up the Economic Ladder: Latino Workers and the Nation’s Future

Prosperity. Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza, 2000.

2. “The Employment Situation: May 2003,” Press Release, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 6, 2003: Table A-1. Employment Status of the Civilian Population bySex and Age, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_06062003.pdf.

3. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics: Employment Status of the CivilianNoninstitutional Population by Sex, Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin, 2001 Annual Averages.

4. Humphreys, Jeff, Hispanic Buying Power by Place of Residence: 1990-1997. Athens, Georgia:University of Georgia, Selig Center for Economic Growth, 1997.

5. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001 Household Data Annual Averages: Table 12.Employed White, Black, and Hispanic-Origin Workers by Sex, Occupation, Class or Worker, and Full-or Part-Time Status.

6. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey: Table 10. Educational Attainment of People 25 Yearsand Over, by Nativity and Period of Entry, Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: March 2002.

7. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3: PCT62H. Age by Language Spoken at Home byAbility to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over (Hispanic or Latino). Percentagescalculated by the National Council of La Raza.

8. Gonzalez, Arturo, “The Acquisition and Labor Market Value of Four English Skills: New Evidence fromNALS,” Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 18, No. 3, July 2000, pp. 259-269.

9. CLASP analysis of The Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD), Program Year2000. Data not included from Alabama, Louisiana, New York, and Pennsylvania.

10. Wrigley, Heide Spruck, Elise Richer, Karin Marinson, Hitomi Kubo, and Julie Strawn, The Language ofOpportunity: Expanding Employment Prospects for Adults with Limited English Skills. Washington,DC: Center for Law and Social Policy, August 2003.

11. Liu, Sue and Kent Phillippe, 2001-2002 Workforce Development Affiliate Assessment Findings.Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza, 2003.

Page 31


There are an estimated 1.6to 1.8 million farmworkersin the U.S., and over 70%

of America’s farmworkers areLatino.1 While a large percentage(52%) of all farmworkers areundocumented workers,2 manyare legal immigrants and U.S.citizens. Today, countlessAmericans of Mexican descenttrace their roots back to theBracero program of the 1940sthrough the 1960s, in which fourmillion Mexican farm laborerscame to work in U.S. agriculturalfields. While this program servesas an important reference pointfor one segment of the Latinocommunity, it also represents anexample of the abuses ofguestworker programs, sincebraceros had limited workers’rights, were required to turn intheir work permits and return toMexico when their contractsexpired, and experiencedharassment and racism.

The entire Latino communityremains firmly committed to theplight of farmworkers – which hasbeen ignored by the federal

government for far too long – andis appalled by the conditions inwhich these members of ourcommunity are expected to liveand work.

Data and ResearchHighlightsThe status of the U.S. farmworkercommunity is influenced byseveral sets of conditions inmultiple arenas, and isparticularly worrisome withrespect to children.

Poor living and workingconditions. There is sufficientevidence to suggest that U.S.farmworkers and their familieslive under appalling conditions.Agriculture ranks as one of thethree most dangerous occupationsin the U.S. In the period 1980-1994, the combined category ofagriculture, forestry, and fishingexperienced a fatality rate of 20.5deaths per 100,000 workers,which was second only to mining.3

Moreover, in 20 states, theagricultural category topped thelist with the highest rate of work-related deaths and, in 11 states,

the agriculture category had thelargest number of work-relateddeaths.4 In addition, there aremany health risks includingmuscle, joint, and skin problems,heat stroke, cancers, birth defects,and neurological damages.5 Theuse of dangerous pesticides in theagricultural industry is also ofserious concern.6 Unfortunately,many of our nation’s farmworkersare still denied the most basicamenities including toilets,drinking water, and hand-washingfacilities.

Poverty-level wages. In terms ofincome, the National AgriculturalWorkers Survey found that one-half of all individual farmworkersearned less than $7,500 per yearand that one-half of allfarmworker families earned lessthan $10,000 per year.7 Three infive (61%) farmworkers had belowpoverty-level incomes,8 makingfarmwork one of the most poorlyremunerated occupations in theU.S.

Limited employment rights. Themajority of farmworkers areforeign-born (81%), and 77% are

Page 33


FarmworkersBY MIRIAM CALDERÓN, EDUCATION POLICY ANALYST; AND

MICHELE WASLIN, SENIOR IMMIGRATION POLICY ANALYST

Overview

Mexican-born.9 Immigrantfarmworkers encounter additionalproblems. For undocumentedfarmworkers, the lack of a legalimmigration status makes themespecially vulnerable to poorwages and working conditions.While guestworkers under the H-2A visa program have moreworkplace rights thanundocumented workers, they are

still not covered by the Migrantand Seasonal Agricultural WorkerProtection Act (AWPA), theprincipal federal employment lawfor farmworkers. As temporarynonimmigrants, H-2A workers aredependent on one employer fortheir ability to remain in the U.S.,they lack economic and politicalbargaining power, and they havefew avenues for taking legal action

to enforce the rights they dohave.10

The children of farmworkers.Children of farmworkers areamong the most vulnerablechildren in our nation. They areoften forced to accompany theirparents in the fields while theywork picking the fruit andvegetables that make their way toour supermarkets and dinner

Page 34


FIG

UR

E 5 Number of Head Start Eligible Migrant and

Seasonal Farmworker Children, and Number and Percentage of Those Served, in the U.S. and by Selected States, 2001

ELIGIBLE SERVED

NUMBER PERCENTAGE

Total U.S. 161,639 31,400 19%

Arizona 5,545 684 12%

California 46,972 4,872 10%

Florida 11,191 4,814 43%

Georgia 2,970 270 9%

Idaho 4,103 732 18%

Illinois 3,085 520 17%

Iowa 1,491 0 0%

Kansas 1,539 0 0%

Michigan 3,317 1,565 47%

New Mexico 1,546 0 0%

North Carolina 2,419 821 34%

Ohio 2,729 712 26%

Pennsylvania 1,856 313 17%

Texas 15,730 5,200 33%

Washington 13,946 2,604 19%

Source: Head Start Bureau, Descriptive Study of Seasonal Farmworker Families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services, September 2001. Percentages calculated by NCLR.

tables. While in the fields, thesechildren are often exposed to harshweather conditions, dangerouspesticides, and other occupationalhazards that threaten their healthand physical safety.11

Unfortunately, the children ofmigrant workers do not havesufficient access to existingprograms that can help minimizetheir exposure to dangerousconditions and provide them witheducation. The Migrant andSeasonal Head Start (MSHS)program provides Head Startservices to the children of migrantand seasonal farmworkers andtakes these children away fromthe dangers of the fields andplaces them in classrooms.However, as Figure 5 shows,according to a study by the U.S.Department of Health and HumanServices (HHS), although 161,639children are eligible to participatein the MSHS program, only31,400 (19%) are served due tolack of federal funds. In contrast,

regular Head Start programsreach 60% of eligible children.12

The 1998 Head Start Actreauthorization provided theSecretary of HHS with theauthority to provide increasedfunding for MSHS programs.However, MSHS programs havenever received more than 4% ofoverall Head Start funding.

RecommendationsNCLR believes that our nation’sfarmworkers have endureddifficult conditions for far toolong and that major reforms arenecessary. Specifically:

■ Grant legal status tocurrently undocumentedfarmworkers and revamp thecurrent H-2A visa program.Granting legal status tofarmworkers is necessary togrant them additional laborprotections. One concreterecommendation is to supportthe Agricultural Job

Opportunity, Benefits, andSecurity Act of 2003 (AgJOBS– S. 1645/H.R. 3142). Thisbipartisan legislation marksan important historicalmoment for U.S. farmworkersand is the result of years ofintense negotiations betweengrowers and farmworkers. Ithighlights the status offarmworkers in the U.S. and isthe first major improvementin the status of farmworkersin nearly 20 years.

■ Support Head Start Actreauthorization legislationthat increases funding forMSHS programs. Currently,MSHS receives less than 4%of the annual Head Startappropriation. A modest 1%increase (approximately $69million) would allowapproximately 10,000farmworker children to exitthe fields and enter theclassroom.

Page 35


Notes1. U.S. Department of Labor, “A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farmworkers:

Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 1997-1998” Research Report No. 8.Washington, DC: March 2000, p. 5.

2. Ibid. This percentage is based on 1997-1998 statistics and had grown since the previous estimate.Some experts put the current percentage of undocumented farmworkers as high as 80%.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Fatal Occupational Injuries – United States, 1980-1994,”Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review, Vol. 47, No. 18 April 24, 1998.

4. See Rodriguez, Arturo, Testimony before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, andTraining, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. February 27, 2002.

5. Ibid. Also see Paul K. Mills and Sandy Kwong, “Cancer Incidence in the United Farmworkers ofAmerica, 1987-1997,” American Journal of Industrial Medicine 40: 596-603 (2001).

6. Pesticides: Improvements Needed to Ensure the Safety of Farmworkers and Their Children. U.S.General Accounting Office, a report to Congress. RCED-00-40. March 14, 2000.

7. “A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farmworkers: Findings from the NationalAgricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 1997-1998,” op. cit., p. 39.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid., p. 5.

10. See Goldstein, Bruce, “The Basics about Guestworker Programs.” Washington, DC: FarmworkerJustice Fund, 2003. www.fwjustice.org/the_basics.htm.

11. See Davis, Shelley and James B. Leonard, “The Ones the Law Forgot: Children Working inAgriculture.” Washington, DC: Farmworker Justice Fund.http://www.fwjustice.org/images/CHILD%20LABOR%20REPORT%20-%20FINAL.pdf

12. Head Start Bureau, The Descriptive Study of Seasonal Farmworker Families. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, September 2001.

Page 36


From the lack of healthinsurance and inadequateaccess to health care, to the

high costs of prescription drugs,health issues have become one ofthe top priorities for the Hispaniccommunity. The Hispanicpopulation is the largest minorityin the U.S. and Hispanic men aremore likely to be in the laborforce than any other group ofAmerican workers. Yet, Latinoadults and children have thehighest rates of uninsurance inthe nation. In part because oftheir lack of health insurance, theLatino community faces a numberof significant health challengesthat could be prevented or moreeffectively managed if Hispanicshad access to quality health care;these include disproportionatelyhigh rates of diabetes, asthma,HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and heartdisease.

In addition to lack of insurance,Latinos are further denied accessto this country’s health system bythe high costs of health care, alack of linguistically andculturally competent health

providers, and a lack of outreachefforts targeted toward enrollingeligible Latinos in public healthprograms.

Data and ResearchHighlightsThere is sufficient evidence todemonstrate that Latino healthcare is in crisis. Two of the mostpressing issues in the health arenafor Latinos are health insuranceand the health safety net.Moreover, there is a great need foradditional research and dataregarding specific areas of healthcare in the Hispanic communityand their consequences.

Lack of health insurance.According to the Kaiser FamilyFoundation’s most recent analysisfrom the 2000 Census, 34% ofHispanics are uninsuredcompared to 22% of AfricanAmericans, 20% of Asian/PacificIslanders, and 12% of Whites.While Latinos have high workparticipation rates and are thecornerstone of our nation’s low-wage workforce, among low-wageworkers 63.2% of noncitizens of

Hispanic origin and 36.3% ofcitizens of Hispanic descent areuninsured.1 Further, despitesignificant national efforts toprovide health insurance tochildren through theimplementation of the StateChildren’s Health InsuranceProgram (SCHIP), according tothe Current Population Survey,24.9% of Latino children areuninsured compared to 7.6% ofWhite non-Hispanic children,14.3% of Black children, and12.1% of Asian/Pacific Islanderchildren, as Figure 6 shows.2

Employment-based insurance. Amajor contributing factor toHispanics’ low insurance rate isthat, unlike most Americans,Hispanics often do not receivehealth coverage through theirjobs despite high rates ofemployment. In fact, anoverwhelming majority ofuninsured Latinos (87%) comefrom working families.3 In 2001,of children covered by healthinsurance, 40.5% of Latinochildren were covered byemployment-based insurance,

Page 37


HealthBY MARCELA URRUTIA, SENIOR HEALTH POLICY ANALYST

Overview

compared to 74.1% of non-Hispanic White children and49.6% of Black children.4 Thus,the lack of insurance amongLatinos is not related tounemployment but, rather, totheir position in the workforce.Latinos tend to have jobs thatsupport the infrastructure of ournation – such as those in theconstruction, agriculture, andservice industries – which do notoffer health coverage or otherbenefits, even for full-time work.5

Health status. Access to healthinsurance coverage dramaticallyinfluences both the way peopleutilize health services and theirhealth outcomes. People who

lack health insurance are lesslikely to obtain needed services,such as a doctor’s visit or a filledprescription and, as a result, theyare more likely to have poorhealth. The following examplesare illustrative:

■ Uninsured diabetics are lesslikely than those withinsurance to receivepreventive care, such as eyeexams, foot exams, andcareful monitoring of bloodglucose levels. They are alsoless likely to have good bloodglucose control.6

■ Health insurance promotesaccess to timely prenatal care

and to Caesarean-sectiondeliveries for high-risk birthsfor pregnant women, as wellas neonatal intensive care forhigh-risk babies. Evidencealso suggests that uninsuredbabies have poorer survivalthan the privately insured.7

■ A recent study found that ininner-city areas wheresignificant numbers ofPuerto Ricans live, childrenwith persistent or severeasthma do not use therecommended treatment ofinhaled anti-inflammatorymedicine on a daily basis, inpart because of lack ofinsurance and access to

Page 38


7.6

14.3

24.9

12.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic Asian/PacificIslander

Source: U.S. Census Burreau, Current Population Report , Children With Health Insurance: 2001.August 2003.

FIG

UR

E 6 Proportion of Children without Health Insurance in the U.S.,

by Race/Ethnicity, 2001

Perc

ent

health care.8 In anotherstudy, Latino preschoolershospitalized for asthma wereless likely than White childrento have received maximalpreventive therapy prior tohospital admission or toobtain equipment to helpmanage asthma afterdischarge.9 The rate ofasthma-induced emergencyroom visits was nearly twiceas high for Latinos (35%) asfor Whites (18%).10 Thesedata suggest that for a greaterproportion of Latinos, theemergency room is the onlyaccessible source of care, andthat asthma is more likely leftuntreated until it escalates toemergency levels.

The health safety net. Lackingaccess to job-based and costlyprivate insurance, Latino familieshave few options when trying tosecure health coverage for theirfamilies. While Medicaid andSCHIP often represent the lastremaining recourse for low-income Latinos, many are noteligible for these programs due tolegal and eligibility barriers, aswell as income thresholdrequirements. Further, manyaspects of the public healthsystem actively undermine theability of uninsured andunderinsured Latino families tosecure coverage, despite their

eligibility. As described below, acomplex set of factors continuesto make health insuranceinaccessible for Latinos.

■ Citizenship barriers toeligibility. The policies thatgovern legal immigrant accessto health programs wereenacted as part of the 1996Personal Responsibility andWork OpportunityReconciliation Act (PRWORA),commonly known as welfarereform. According to theselaws, legal immigrants whoarrive in this country afterAugust 1996, includingchildren, are banned fromenrolling in programs such asMedicaid and SCHIP for fiveyears after their entry, andhave to meet additionaleligibility requirements thatoften render them ineligibledespite need. Theseimmigrants are deniedcoverage despite residinglegally in this country andpaying taxes that support thevery programs from which theyare banned. In addition to thePRWORA restrictions on legalimmigrants, undocumentedimmigrants are banned fromMedicaid and SCHIP.

■ Language barriers to healthprograms. According to the2000 Census, 23.6% ofLatinos over the age of five

speak English less than“well,”11 which suggests thatthey are limited Englishproficient (LEP). While LEPLatinos are eager to learnEnglish and recognize theimportance of becomingproficient in English, learningthe language as an adult is alengthy and sometimes costlyprocess. During the time LEPindividuals become proficientin English, LEP families areoften denied access to healthcare services because oflanguage obstacles.According to a report fromthe Kaiser Commission onMedicaid and the Uninsured,nearly one-half (46%) ofSpanish-speaking parentswere unable to enroll theirchildren in Medicaid becauseforms and information werenot translated into theirlanguage.12 Another half(50%) said the belief thatapplication materials wouldnot be available in theirlanguage discouraged themfrom even trying to enrolltheir children.13 The lack oftranslation services andmaterials available to LEPfamilies helps to explain whylow-income Latino childrenwho live in Spanish-speakingfamilies are twice as likely tobe uninsured compared tolow-income Latino children

Page 39


who live in English-speakingfamilies (43% and 21%,respectively).14 Theconsequences of limited or nolanguage access to healthprograms is also reflected inthe large percentage ofSpanish-speaking Latinos(31%) who report themselvesto be in fair or poor health.15

RecommendationsNCLR believes that the followingmeasures would increase theproportion of Latino children andadults with health insurance, andpromote access to health care andpositive health outcomes:

■ Current measures thatimprove health access andequity for Latinos. NCLRsupports both the HispanicHealth Improvement Act(H.R. 2258/S. 1159) and theHealth Care Equality andAccountability Act (H.R. 3459and S. 1833), whichcomprehensively addresshealth care access barriersand prioritize measures thatimprove the health status ofLatinos. Both bills broadlyseek to improve upon healthdisparities by implementing

several provisions includingrestoring levels of equity tolegal immigrants banned fromMedicaid and SCHIP, providingadditional resources forlanguage access, supportingavenues for improved culturalcompetence and increasednumber of minority healthprofessionals, and recognizingthe need for data collectionand reporting that identifiesLatinos and other minorities.

■ Lift the bar excluding low-income legal immigrantsfrom federal Medicaid andSCHIP. Current policyspecifically excludingindividuals based on theirstatus as legal immigrants hashad a profound negativeimpact on access to healthcare for children, pregnantwomen, and other immigrantswho would otherwise beincome-eligible for Medicaid.NCLR supports proposals thatrestore equity to legalimmigrants, including theLegal Immigrant Children’sHealth Improvement Actwhich gives states the optionto allow legal immigrantchildren and pregnant women

who arrived after August 22,1996 access to federalMedicaid and SCHIP, if theyare otherwise eligible.

■ Implementation andmonitoring of strong limited-English-proficient (LEP)guidance by the U.S.Department of Health andHuman Services. Languagebarriers are often cited as amain reason impeding accessto health care and services.Due to a pervasive lack oftranslated materials andinterpreter services at healthentities – despite legalobligations requiring attemptsto provide language access –children are frequently placedin the position of serving asinterpreters for their familieswhich leads to their beingpulled out of school and intoinappropriate medicalsituations. Theimplementation of strong LEPguidance ensures thatindividuals who are learningEnglish have equitable accessto the health care system theysupport with their tax dollars.

Page 40


Notes1. Blumberg, Linda J. and Amy J. Davidoff, “Exploring State Variation in Uninsured Rates among Low-

Income Workers,” The Urban Institute, Series B, No. B-56, October 2003.

2. Mills, Robert J., Current Population Survey, Health Insurance Coverage 2001. Washington, DC: U.S.Census Bureau, September 2001.

3. Brown, E. Richard, Victoria D. Ojeda, Roberta Wyn, and Rebecka Levan, Racial and Ethnic Disparitiesin Access to Health Insurance and Health Care. Los Angeles, California: UCLA Center for Health PolicyResearch and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, April 2000.

4. Bhandari, Shailesh and Elizabeth Gifford, Current Population Reports, Children With HealthInsurance: 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, August 2003.

5. Brown, R. Richard, Ninez Ponce, Thomas Rice, and Shana Alex Lavarreda, The State of HealthInsurance in California: Findings from the 2001 California Health Interview Survey. Los Angeles,California: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, June 2002.

6. Hadley, Jack, Sicker and Poorer: The Consequences of Being Uninsured. Washington, DC: The KaiserCommission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, May 2002; The National Survey on the Uninsured, MenloPark, California: The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, April2000.

7. Ibid.

8. Focus: Asthma, Minority Lung Disease Data. New York, NY: American Lung Association, State of theAir, 2002.

9. Finkelstein, Jonathon A., Randall W. Brown, Lynda C. Schneider, Scott T. Weiss, José M. Quintana,Donald A. Goldmann, and Charles J. Homer, “Quality of Care for Preschool Children with Asthma: TheRole of Social Factors and Practice Setting,” Pediatrics, Volume 95, March 1995, pp. 389-394.

10. Confronting Asthma in California’s Latino Communities. San Francisco, California: Latino IssuesForum, 2000.

11. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3 - Sample Data: Table PCT11. Language Spoken atHome by Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over (Hispanic or Latino).

12. Perry, Michael, Susan Kannel, R. Burciaga Valdez, and Christina Chang, Medicaid and Children:Overcoming Barriers to Enrollment, Findings from a National Survey. Washington, DC: The Henry J.Kaiser Family Foundation, January 2000.

13. Ibid.

Page 41


14. Mann, Cindy, David Rousseau, Rachel Garfield, and Molly O’Malley, Reaching Uninsured ChildrenThrough Medicaid: If you Build it Right, They Will Come. The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and theUninsured, June 2002; Ku, Leighton and Timothy Waidmann, How Race/Ethnicity, Immigration Statusand Language Affect Health Insurance Coverage, Access to Care and Quality of Care Among the Low-Income Population, Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, August 2003.

15. Perkins, Jane, Ensuring Linguistic Access in Health Care Settings: An Overview of Current Legal Rightsand Responsibilities. Menlo Park, California: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, forthcoming2004.

Page 42


For most American families,a home is their primaryasset and homeownership

represents their single greatestwealth-building vehicle, allowinghouseholds to leverage equity tosend children to college or start abusiness. Homeownership is alsothe foundation to build strong andstable communities.

For more than two decades,Latinos have been significantly lesslikely than other Americans to behomeowners. Several factors havecontributed to the large gap inhomeownership rates betweenLatinos and other Americans,including lack of educationregarding the homebuying process;the combination of low Latinoincomes and savings and soaringhousing costs; lack of a strong orsolid credit history, especially forimmigrant households who aremore familiar with cash-driveneconomies; housingdiscrimination; and theunresponsiveness by the housingindustry to engage in sufficientoutreach and to accommodatelanguage and cultural differences.

A desire to reduce housingdisparities between Latinos andothers, coupled with Latinopopulation growth, a strongattachment to the labor force, anda purchasing power estimated at$575 billion,1 have madeincreasing Latino homeownershipa priority for many financialinstitutions across the country.2

Data and ResearchHighlightsThe following discussion providesa snapshot of the key issuesrelated to Latinos andhomeownership:

Homeownership levels. Todaymore than four million Hispanicsare homeowners in the UnitedStates. According to the U.S.Bureau of the Census, in October2001 the Hispanichomeownership rate (48.1%)surpassed that of AfricanAmericans (47.5%) for the firsttime. While Hispanics accountedfor more than 16% of newhomeowner growth between 1995and 2000,3 the Hispanichomeownership rate of 48.1%

continued to lag significantlybehind the nation’s overall rate(67.9%), as well as of that of non-Hispanic Whites (74.5%), asFigure 7 illustrates.4 Theinsufficient proportion of Latinohomeowners – and the lack of thisimportant asset – also helps toexplain the huge wealth gapbetween White and Hispanicfamilies; the median net worth ofWhite families ($81,700 in 1998)is 27 times that of Hispanicfamilies ($3,000 in 1998).5

Lack of affordable housing andlow incomes. The federalaffordability standard assumesthat households spend about one-third of their income on housing.Recent data show that more thantwo out of every five Hispanichouseholds spend more than thefederal affordability standard, andmore than one in six spends atleast half of their income onhousing.6 Lack of affordable for-sale and rental units, especially in“hot” market areas where manyLatino families are concentrated,is a major challenge. Severalstudies document the loss of

Page 43


HomeownershipBY JANIS BOWDLER, HOUSING POLICY ANALYST

Overview

decent and affordable rental unitsand the impact this has on localrents.7 Further, incomes have notkept pace with these increases inrent. The National Low IncomeHousing Coalition estimates thata family has to earn at least$15.21 per hour to afford anaverage-priced two-bedroomapartment, which is more than$10 per hour over minimumwage.8

Transportation costs. The lack ofaffordable for-sale units in theircommunities, or withinreasonable traveling distance fromtheir jobs, has kept manyotherwise mortgage-ready Latino

families from becominghomeowners. According to theConsumer Expenditure Survey, in2001 Latino households spent21% of their income ontransportations costs. Further,debt from automobile loans makesit difficult for families to qualifyfor home loans. Increasedcommuting time and costs, andthe lack of public transportation,directly affect where manyfamilies are able to live and whatthey can afford.

Rigidity of the mortgageindustry. The mortgage lendingand financial services marketshave not served Latinos well, and

many industry policies andbusiness practices have createdmore barriers to, rather thanopportunities for, homeownershipand wealth accumulation.According to the Joint Center forHousing studies, age, income, andfamily composition only accountfor approximately 15 percentagepoints of the 25% homeownershipgap between White and Black andHispanic households.9 Based onthis estimate, approximately1,451,000 more Hispanichouseholds are mortgage-ready.10

However, the mortgage industry isill-prepared to accommodate theirregular circumstances presented

Page 44


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

NationalAverage

Hispanic Black White

Households

Source: U.S. Housing Market Conditions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment, August 2003.

FIG

UR

E 7

Homeownership Rates by Race/Ethnicity 2002

Hom

eow

ners

hip

Rat

e

by many Latino families, such asthin or no credit history orextended families involved in thepurchase. As a result, manyotherwise mortgage-ready familiesare underserved and given lowpriority in a commission-basedindustry. Unwillingness on thepart of the industry to reach outto low-income families hascontributed to a certain amountof mistrust and unfamiliarity withthe homebuying process, whichhas also kept many Latino familiesfrom even attempting to qualifyfor home mortgages.

Discrimination. A recently-released HUD DiscriminationStudy found that, for the firsttime, Hispanics faced morediscrimination than Blacks whenseeking rental or for-sale housing.Hispanic homeseekersexperienced discrimination inalmost 20% of the paired tests,compared to 17% of AfricanAmerican homeseekers. In fact,the study found that Hispanicrenters were the only group toexperience the same amount ofdiscrimination when seekinghousing as they did in 1989, whilediscrimination among all othergroups declined over this 15-yeartime period (25.7% in 2002,compared to 21.6% of AfricanAmericans).11

Predatory lending and subprimefinancing. A solid body ofresearch documents theconcentration and growth ofpredatory lending and subprimefinancing in minorityneighborhoods.12 These practicespush loans with higher interestrates and higher fees, inflate theprice of a loan, making itunaffordable to repay, and aredeceptive because they concealthe true nature of the loan fromborrowers who have limitedinformation about the mortgageprocess. As a result, even thoseprospective homebuyers who doqualify for homeownership oftenaccept less favorable mortgageterms than those for which theyshould be able to qualify. Whilenot all subprime loans arepredatory, the vast majority ofpredatory loans are made in thesubprime market; for this reasonthe concentration of subprimelending in minority communitiesis often used as a research proxyfor unfair or predatory lending.In a study commissioned by theCenter for Community Change(CCC), Latino homeowners weremore than two times as likely toreceive subprime financing thanWhite families with a similarincome. Moreover, simply livingin a Latino neighborhood madeany family one and a half times

more likely to receive a subprimeloan than living in a Whiteneighborhood.13 Further, manyLatino families unfamiliar withmainstream mortgage productsrely on dubious and risky productssuch as a Land Contract (alsoknown as contract for deed), whichcan cost the family their savings,even leave them homeless.

RecommendationsRising levels of homeownershipand net worth for Latinos can beachieved through severalmeasures, as outlined below:

■ Increase the pool ofaffordable housing. Effortsare needed both nationallyand at the state level topromote and facilitate thesupply of affordable housing.Two avenues are promising.First, enactment of theCommunity HomeownershipTax Credit would build on thesuccess of the Low-IncomeHousing Tax Credit by helpingto leverage private dollars thatwill provide the necessarycapital to subsidize the cost ofbuilding units affordable tofamilies living in low-incomecensus tracts and who are at80% of area median incomeor below. Second, theenactment of the NationalHousing Trust Fund will

Page 45


provide a dedicated fundingsource for producingaffordable housing units, aswell as create an economicstimulus in localcommunities.

■ Enhance investments tocommunity-basedorganizations (CBOs). CBOsare often the first point ofcontact for Hispanic families,especially immigrants, areuniquely positioned to assistfirst-time homebuyersthrough the homebuyingprocess, and are in the bestposition to deliverdevelopment andhomeownership services.Community-based housingcounseling agencies alsoreduce the probability ofdelinquency. Congress, state

legislatures, and HUD mustfacilitate increasedopportunities for training andcapacity-building to supportthe work of existing counselingand community developmentorganizations, as well asexpand existing funds forhousing counseling at the locallevel.

■ Take measures againstpredatory lending, including:

■ A HUD-commissionedstudy and other research onthe presence and impact ofpredatory lending inHispanic and other minorityneighborhoods.

■ Strong consumerprotection standardsagainst predatory lenders.Federal standards on

predatory lending need tobe expanded andstrengthened, and properlyenforced. In addition,private business can beginto adopt strong bestpractices and businessmodels to avoid instances ofpredatory lending or thepurchase of predatory loans.

■ Work to create public-private partnerships thatoffer better quality andtailored intervention or lossmitigation programs, in theevent of mortgagedelinquency. Suchpartnerships can result ininnovative strategies forpreventing foreclosures,especially for those who arevictims of the mostegregious predatory loans.

Page 46


Notes1. Humphreys, Jeffrey M., “The Multicultural Economy 2002: Minority Buying Power in the New Century,”

Georgia Business and Economic Conditions, Vol. 62, No. 2, 2002.

2. In 1997 NCLR created the NCLR Homeownership Network (NHN) to address the homeownership gapbetween Whites and Hispanics. Originating with seven community-based organizations, the networkhas grown to 35 groups that provide pre-purchase homebuyer education and one-on-onehomeownership counseling. In addition to funding from the Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment, NHN partners with several private industry partners to sustain and augment servicesdelivered. NHN counsels more than 17,000 families and averages 2,500 loan originations annually.

3. Masnick, George, The New Demographics of Housing. Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for HousingStudies of Harvard University, 2001.

4. U.S. Housing Market Conditions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment, November 2003.

5. Study by Edward Wolf using data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finance (SCF).

6. American Housing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2001.

7. See Meeting Our Nation’s Housing Challenges Report of the Bipartisan Millennial HousingCommission. Washington, DC: May 30, 2002; Cushing N. Dolbeare, Perspectives on Rental Incomeand Affordable Units. Washington, DC: National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2001.

8. Out of Reach 2003: America’s Housing Wage Climbs. Washington, DC: National Low Income HousingCoalition, 2003.

9. State of the Nation’s Housing: 2003, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2003.

10. Based on calculations of data from State of the Nation’s Housing: 2003, Cambridge, MA: Joint Centerfor Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2003, pp. 16-17.

11. Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets, Phase 1. Washington, DC: Office of PolicyDevelopment and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2002.

12. See Immergluck, Daniel, The Explosion of the Subprime Industry and Racial Hypersegmentation inHome Equity Lending. Chicago, IL: Woodstock Institute, 2000; Separate and Unequal: PredatoryLending in America. Washington, DC: Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now(ACORN), October 2000; Turner, Margaret Austin and Felicity Skidmore, eds., Mortgage LendingDiscrimination: A Review of Existing Evidence. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1999.

13. Bradford, Calvin, Risk or Race: Racial Disparities and the Subprime Refinance Market. Washington,DC: Center for Community Change, May 2002.

Page 47


The majority of Latinos inthe U.S. are native-borncitizens – 60% according

to the 2000 Census – but, likemost Americans, many Latinoshave parents or other familymembers who emigrated fromother countries to the U.S. Inaddition, many U.S. Latinos live inmixed-status families andcommunities, meaning that U.S.citizens, legal immigrants, andundocumented immigrants oftenare part of the same household.One in ten children in the U.S.lives in a mixed-status family inwhich at least one parent is anoncitizen and one child is acitizen.1 Moreover, many U.S.-bornHispanics are mistaken forimmigrants because of theirethnicity, appearance, or accent.Therefore, issues affectingimmigrants have adisproportionate effect on U.S.Latino families; as a result,Hispanics care deeply about thenation’s policies towardimmigrants and vigorously supportfair and respectful treatment ofimmigrants under the law.

The nation’s views concerningimmigration policy andimmigrants often reflect attitudestoward, and impressions of, thebroader Latino community.Often, these policies and aspectsof overall immigration strategyhave not treated Latinos fairly andhave not been in tune witheconomic and security needs,underscoring the great andgrowing demand forcomprehensive reforms to ournation’s immigration system.

Data and ResearchHighlightsThere are four sets of issues thatrepresent the most pressingaspects of the U.S. immigrationarena for Latinos:

Immigrant workers. The currentimmigration system does notprovide a sufficient number ofworkers to fill the needs of theU.S. economy. As a result,millions of undocumentedimmigrants are working in theU.S., filling vital jobs, andcontributing to our economy.While estimates vary, most

researchers calculate that thereare approximately 9.3 millionundocumented immigrants livingin the U.S., representing 26% ofthe total foreign-born population.2

Unauthorized urban workers, asubset of the total undocumentedpopulation, number approximatelysix million, or 5% of all U.S.workers.3 Nearly all undocumentedmen are in the labor force (96%) –exceeding the labor forceparticipation rate of legalimmigrants or U.S. citizens.4

While updated figures based onnew estimates of the number ofundocumented immigrants arenot available, in 2001 anestimated 620,000 undocumentedworkers worked in theconstruction industry, 1.2 millionworked in manufacturing, 1.4million worked in wholesale andretail trades, and another 1.3million worked in the serviceindustry (See Figure 8).5

These immigrants maketremendous contributions to theU.S. economy. According to theNational Academy of Sciences,immigrants and their children

Page 49


Immigration BY MICHELE WASLIN, SENIOR IMMIGRATION POLICY ANALYST

Overview

bring long-term economicbenefits to the U.S. as a whole.Immigrants add approximately$10 billion each year to the U.S.economy. Immigrant householdspaid an estimated $133 billion indirect taxes to federal, state, andlocal governments in 1997, thelatest year for which such data areavailable. The typical immigrantand his or her descendants pay anestimated $80,000 more in taxesthan they receive in governmentbenefits over their lifetimes.6 Yet,

undocumented workers live in theshadows, are unable to obtainhealth care benefits, other basicsocial services, or driver’s licenses,are fearful of coming forward toreport poor working conditions,and are unable to become fullmembers of the U.S. economy andsociety.

Labor practices. Whenunscrupulous employers hirevulnerable, exploitable,undocumented workers, wages

and labor conditions for allworkers suffer. To illustrate, inMarch 2002, the Supreme Courtissued a decision that overturnedthe long-standing precedent thatall workers are covered equally bylabor laws, regardless of theirimmigration status. In theHoffman Plastic Compounds v.National Labor Relations Board(NLRB) decision, the Courtdecided that employees workingin the United States with falsedocuments are not entitled to

Page 50


FIG

UR

E 8

Unauthorized Workers in the Urban Labor Force, 2001 (in thousands)

INDUSTRY GROUP TOTAL UNAUTHORIZED U.S. LABOR FORCE

Construction 620 9,670

Manufacturing 1,190 20,830

Durable 580 12,670

Non-durable 610 8,150

Wholesale and Retail Trades 1,410 29,850

Restaurants 700 7,720

Others 720 22,130

Services 1,320 41,960

Business 390 2,350

Private Household 250 1,050

Other 690 38,570

Other Industries* 350 37,990

Total Workers 5,300 143,640

* Other industries include transportation, communication, finance, insurance, real estate, mining, and public

administration.

Source: Lowell, B. Lindsay and Roberto Suro, "How Many Undocumented: The Numbers Behind the U.S.-Mexico

Migration Talks." Washington, DC: The Pew Hispanic Center, March 21, 2002.

back pay from employers, even ifthey are fired illegally.7 Bydenying a remedy to one group ofworkers, the Hoffman decisionundermines the status of allworkers and strengthensemployers’ incentive to hireunauthorized workers becausethey can fire these employeeswhen they engage in any activitydeemed unfit without sufferingany legal ramifications. TheHoffman decision hurts allAmerican workers because itlowers wages, reduces workingconditions, and discouragesorganizing, and it also harms law-abiding employers who receiveunfair competition fromunscrupulous employers who takeadvantage of undocumented labor.

The human costs of immigration.Enforcement of immigration lawsis ineffective. Although theamount of money spent each yearby the federal government onborder enforcement has morethan quintupled from $740million in 1993 to $3.8 billion inFY 2004,8 the number ofundocumented immigrants hasnot decreased, and the length ofstay in the U.S. has increased.9

Instead, increased but ineffectiveenforcement has had an effect on:

■ The price charged bysmugglers to bringimmigrants into the U.S.

Migrants are payingtremendous sums tosmugglers (coyotes) to assistthem in crossing the border.According to Doug Mossier,spokesperson for the BorderPatrol’s El Paso Sector,coyotes charge between $100and $500 to cross people fromCiudad Juárez, Mexico to ElPaso, Texas. A move from theinterior of Mexico into theU.S. costs $1,500 to $5,000.The Border Patrolapproximates that at least 20networks of coyotes are activein the Ciudad Juárez region.10

Often, migrants are indebtedto these coyotes for yearsafter they arrive in the U.S.,sometimes working asindentured servants until thefees are paid. 11

■ The overall danger of makingthe journey. Immigrantscontinue to pay large sums torisk their lives because theywant to work and reunite withtheir families. Data show thatthe number of border deathshas increased dramatically inrecent years, now reachingnearly one death per day. In2000, 311 undocumentedimmigrants died whilecrossing the U.S.-Mexicoborder; in 2001 the figurerose to 491. In 2002, thenumber of deaths dropped to

371. However, in the firstseven months of 2003,Mexico’s Secretariat ofExterior Relations reportedthat 282 Mexicans died whileattempting to enter the U.S.,which is a 20% increase inthe number of deaths whencompared to the same periodin 2002. Similarly, the U.S.Border Patrol counts thatmore than 225 migrants havedied along the U.S.-Mexicoborder since June 3, 2003.12

Family reunification backlogs.Millions of close family membersremain in visa backlogs for years,waiting to be reunited with theirfamilies. A January 2004 GeneralAccounting Office report claimsthat 6.2 million applications forimmigration benefits are pendingas of September 2003 – a 59%increase in the last two years.13

U.S. citizens who petition forunmarried children over 21 yearsold from Mexico must wait as longas nine years to be reunited.Legal permanent residents fromMexico who petition for theirimmediate family members(spouses and minor unmarriedchildren) may wait as long asseven years. Because of the strictlaws regarding issuance oftemporary visas, many spousesand children do not qualify fortourist visas to the U.S. becauseimmigration officials fear they will

Page 51


overstay the visa and remain inthe U.S. Rather than endure longwaiting periods, some familymembers choose to risk their livesand come to the U.S. without avisa to be reunited with lovedones, thereby adding to theundocumented population. Thecurrent allocation of visas in thefamily preference system is clearlyinadequate to account for themillions of immigrantsattempting to play by the rulesand enter the U.S. legally.

RecommendationsNCLR believes that immigrationpolicy, enforcement, andeffectiveness can be improvedthrough:

■ Comprehensive immigrationreform. A three-part reformmust include:

1. An earned adjustmentthrough whichundocumented immigrantswho can prove they havelived and worked in the U.S.and pass extensivebackground checks canreceive legal status

2. A reduction in the familybacklogs

3. The creation of legalchannels for future flows ofimmigrant workers

■ Repeal the Hoffman PlasticCompounds v. National LaborRelations Board decision.This Supreme Court decisionis harmful to all workers inthe U.S. regardless ofimmigration status.

Page 52


Notes1. The Urban Institute, “Children of Immigrants Fact Sheet.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute,

2001.

2. Passell, Jeffrey S., Randolph Capps, and Michael E. Fix, Undocumented Immigrants: Facts and Figures.Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, January 12, 2004.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Lowell, Lindsay B. and Roberto Suro, “How Many Undocumented: The Numbers behind the U.S.-Mexico Migration Talks.” Washington, DC: The Pew Hispanic Center, March 21, 2002.

6. Smith, James P. and Barry Edmonston, eds., The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic,Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences,1997.

7. “Used and Abused: The Treatment of Undocumented Victims of Labor Law Violations Since HoffmanPlastic Compounds v. NLRB.” MALDEF and National Employment Law Project, 2003.

8. Ewing, Walter A., “The Cost of Doing Nothing: The Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”Washington, DC: American Immigration Lawyers Foundation, January 2004.

9. See Massey, Douglas, Jorge Durand, and Nolan J. Malone, Beyond Smoke and Mirrors, MexicanImmigration in an Era of Economic Integration. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 2002.

10. Saenz, Cesar Cruz, El Diario (Ciudad Juarez, Mexico), September 4, 2003.

11. Shirk, David and Alexandra Webber, “Slavery Without Borders: Human Trafficking in the U.S.-MexicanContext,” Hemisphere Focus, Volume XII, Issue 5. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic andInternational Studies, Americas Program, January 23, 2004.

12. Letter from Claudia Smith, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation to Customs and BorderProtection Commissioner Robert C. Bonner, November 10, 2003.

13. General Accounting Agency, “Immigration Application Fees: Current Fees Are Not Sufficient to FundU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Operations,” GAO-04-309R. Washington, DC: GAO,January 05, 2004.

Page 53


The recommendationsoutlined in this report arenot arguments for

altruism; they are essentialinvestments aimed atstrengthening a population whosewell-being is vital to the nation’sfuture. As a significant andgrowing presence in schoolsystems, the workforce, theelectorate, and the broader fabricof American economic and sociallife, the Latino community’sprospects are inextricably linkedto those of the nation as a whole.

On the preceding pages, NCLRhas identified and articulated theleading priorities that can enrichand strengthen those prospects,underscoring that the challengesfacing us as Americans are notintractable; improvements ineducation, employment, health,and housing, as well as in thecriminal justice and immigrationsystems, are easily within thenation’s grasp. In that sense,these Latino perspectives on theAmerican agenda are intended asa demonstration that the kinds ofreforms that can accomplish key

results are both desirable andachievable, as well as a call toaction – for Latino communitiesand individuals, for policy-makersand public officials, and for theprivate sector.

Latino Communitiesand IndividualsIn the past, Latinos haveexperienced periods of intensifiedpolicy-maker and media attention,only to be followed by inactionand disregard with respect to thepriorities of the Hispaniccommunity. But such cycleshave only reinforced the will,efforts, and strong sense of self-reliability that guide the Latinocommunity to craft solutions tothe challenges outlined in thisreport. For those Latino youth inTexas who do not completeschool, there are community-based educational programsestablished and operated byLatinos to offer an alternative.For those elderly legal immigrantsin California who face hungerbecause the law denies them foodstamps, there is a local Latino

agency ready to step in withnutritional assistance. For thoseLatino children in North Carolinawho lack health insurance, thereare programs that provide accessto basic medical care. For thoseprospective Latino homebuyers inthe Bronx who have been turnedaway from major banks, there is acommunity developmentorganization ready to guide themthrough the mortgage applicationand qualification process.

In addition to the thousands ofLatino community-basedorganizations across the countrythat take the lead daily anddemonstrate their willingness toaccept responsibility foraddressing disparities betweenHispanics and other Americans,there is great potential for Latinoindividuals to be the force thataccomplishes the kinds of reformsrecommended in this report. In2000, over 5.9 million Latinosparticipated in the presidentialelection. In a report on theLatino electorate published in2002, NCLR projected that, even ifthere were no change in rates of

Page 55


Conclusions

voter registration and turnout,population growth alone wouldaccount for a net increase of 1.9million Latino voters in 2004, to atotal of 7.8 million voters. Ifefforts to close the registrationand turnout gap between Latinosand other groups were to besuccessful, NCLR projects that theLatino electorate could grow toover nine million voters this year– a growth rate of more than one-third compared to the 2000election.

These data strongly suggest thatLatinos themselves hold the keyto focusing policy-maker attentionon priority issues, and insistingon results. However, presence inthe electorate alone will nottranslate into policy changeunless the community is able toleverage the considerableattention it receives from thoseseeking Latino votes intomeaningful policy proposals thatcan achieve positive impacts overtime. In particular, the Latinocommunity can:

■ Insist on specifics, not juston Spanish. Electioncampaigns and the media thatcover them tend to spendLatino-focused dollars andattention on Spanish-language media and thecandidates’ facility in Spanish,rather than on the messagecandidates are attempting to

communicate to attractLatino voters, the vastmajority of whom – as ithappens – speak English.While many in thecommunity appreciate the useof Spanish as a sign ofrespect, the language of thecampaign message is nosubstitute for its substance;Latinos must evaluatepolitical candidates on thebasis of their goals forimproving the status of thecommunity as an essentialstrategy for strengthening thenation.

■ Participate at every level ofthe electoral process. Someof the most promisingstrategies for increasingLatino civic participation haveincluded organizingimmigrants who are not yeteligible to vote to knock ondoors and encourage eligiblevoters to be a voice for thelarger community, andcommunity-based campaignsaimed at low-propensityvoters. Community-basedorganizations also play anessential role in assistingimmigrants with thenaturalization and voterregistration processes.Similarly, with significantnumbers of young Latinosreaching voting age each year,

special attention must focuson strengthening the voice ofyoung Latinos andencouraging them to vote.

■ Focus on accountability andresults. At the end of the day,the strength of the Latinovoice in leveraging policychange is measured in theresults that affect individuals’lives in the community itself.Policy-makers who campaignon key issues like educationand health care must be heldaccountable, and thecommunity itself must engagein the process of buildingsupport for essential reformsand implementing those thatare enacted.

Additionally, Latinos must figureprominently in national and state-level policy debates that areessential to the future of allAmericans, both as a force inshaping the issues, throughresearch and public informationefforts, and in moving the agendaforward, through advocacy andorganizing.

Policy-makers andPublic OfficialsAlmost a decade ago, NCLR citedresearch from a Rand Corporationreport which showed that if wecould increase the collegecompletion rate of today’s

Page 56


Hispanic 18-year-olds by as littleas three percentage points,projected payments into socialinsurance programs that benefitall Americans would increase by$600 million. Yet, as this reportdocuments, there are still large,worrisome, and unacceptabledisparities between the proportionof Latino and other Americanchildren who participate inpreschool.

In a similar vein, the Hispanichousing market represents a hugepotential source of new mortgageloans, estimated to be about twomillion households, translatinginto approximately $182 billion inpotential loan originations.Moreover, research shows thatcommunities with highhomeownership rates benefitsubstantially, through higherhome values, better educationalperformance from children, andgreater stability. Yet, one in fiveLatinos faces discrimination whenseeking housing.

As the preceding discussionshows, there are similararguments with respect tostrategies for improving access tohealth care, gainingadvancements in civil rights, oradvancing the skills of ournation’s workforce. These goalsare all consistent with the broaderobjective of strengthening societyas a whole, but they have not

equally enjoyed the politicalsupport needed to achieve them.

Given the increased interest in theLatino vote, this upcomingelection season represents anotheropportunity for candidates, publicofficials, and policy-makers todemonstrate their concern for,knowledge of, and alignment withthese issues. This attention iswelcome – and warranted – giventhat the Latino vote is likely to bea major factor in elections atevery level, including local- andstate-level races, as well as in keyelectoral battleground states inthe presidential contest. Whilethe Hispanic community itselfshoulders the bulk of theresponsibility for mobilizing andparticipating in key elections, it isalso true that candidates,organizers, and pollsters shouldfocus attention and resources onLatinos and their issues in a waythat could stimulate participationand strengthen the democraticprocess. In particular, politicalparties and candidates should:

■ Invest in those who haven’tturned out...yet. NCLRpointed out in its 2002analysis of the Latinoelectorate that politicalcampaigns tend to focus theirresources on voters who havepreviously participated,developing policies, messages,and strategies aimed at

gaining support andmobilizing those who havealready engaged in theprocess. These tactics run therisk of failing to identifybarriers to participation forthose who are eligible to vote,but fail to participate.Similarly, by failing to focuson Latino voters the kind ofsophisticated polling andmessage development that isaimed at segments of themainstream electorate, suchas elderly White voters,“soccer moms,” or “GenXers,”political parties andcandidates may be missingopportunities to shape issues,agendas, and messages towardthose who may feel that thecurrent process – and itscandidates – are out of touchwith their concerns.

■ Go beyond immigration. Theemphasis on Spanish-language messages and media,which has been demonstratedby both political parties andtrumpeted by the media,suggests the possibility thatefforts to appeal to Latinovoters are still relativelyshallow appeals focused onlanguage and culture, asopposed to moresophisticated, issue-orientedarguments. The notableexception to this may be

Page 57


immigration policy, whichPresident Bush placedsquarely on the election-yearagenda with his January 2004announcement of principlesfor immigration reform.Oddly, the focus by bothparties on immigrationreform when appealing to theLatino electorate serves tounderscore the largerproblem. Latinos care deeplyabout immigration and thetreatment of immigrants;Latino voters have turned outin record numbers in recentelections against candidatesperceived to be anti-immigrant. However, whileimmigration policy is oneLatino concern worthaddressing, it tends to ranklower in polls that ask Latinovoters about their primaryconcerns other thaneducation, health care, andjobs. The more candidatesassume that they’ve “covered”the Latino electorate withtheir positions regardingimmigrants, the less likelythey are to pay attention tothe issues that loom muchlarger for the well-being ofthe community, and thenation. This is a mistake forwhich the community – andthe nation – pays a very largeprice.

■ Remember Latinos after theelection. What will trulyresonate with Latinos will bethose who give life to thisagenda after the elections,those who will refer to thisand other documents, askquestions, meet with Latinos,listen to the community’sconcerns, and support thesegoals when the outcome willnot be measured by one vote,but by increases ineducational attainment,employment status, andhomeownership, and bydecreases in racial profiling,juvenile offenders, anddiscrimination.

The Private SectorBoth private philanthropy andprivate business also have a stakein the well-being of the nation’sLatino communities and can playa role in investing in strategiesthat can lead to positive outcomesfor Hispanics.

As a leader in identifying andpromoting effective programinnovations in arenas fromeducation to criminal justice, thephilanthropic community shouldexpand its support for local,Latino-controlled communityefforts that demonstratemeasurable gains in education,employment, homeownership, and

other areas. Funders andgrantmakers can make adifference by supporting rigorousprogram- and policy-orientedresearch that addresses thechallenges outlined in this reportand by encouraging widespreadadoption of effective programsthrough collaborative efforts withLatino community-basedorganizations, institutions, andadvocates.

In addition, private industry,corporate leaders, and employerscan make two contributions.First, they can ensure that theirbusiness practices and policiesstrengthen the ability ofhardworking Latinos to realizefully the fruit of their labor andachieve economic success. Thebehaviors and policies of firmsand employers can stimulate workopportunity, provide access toquality jobs, and promoteprograms and practices, includinghealth, pensions, and savingsvehicles, that result in benefits forall workers. Second, the privatesector should seek to partner withLatinos, who represent one innine workers and a communitywith an annual purchasing powerof over $575 billion, beyond theirroles as good corporate citizenswho want to work to achieve thegoals outlined in this reportbecause it is the right thing to do.

Page 58


From a purely financialperspective, Latinos represent amarket of investors, homeowners,and consumers that Americanbusiness will need to sustain theirprofits in the decades to come.

The types of reformsrecommended in this report arelargely within our reach; the

benefits of investing in them arelikely to be great, just as theconsequences of inaction are likelyto be grave. Just as the nation’sfailure to provide education, health,and economic opportunities to thenation’s largest minority group hasnegative implications fortomorrow’s students, workers, and

taxpayers, it is also true thatinvestments in achieving keyoutcomes are possible, and canpay valuable dividends for societyas a whole. In the long term, thestate of the nation depends verymuch on looking at, and takingsteps to improve, the state ofHispanic America.

Page 59


state of hispanic america 2004: latino perspectives on the american agenda

Documents

hispanic community

hispanic americans

kellogg foundation

macarthur foundation

casey foundation

throughits support

support of nclrswork

nclrs work