Beyond Gateway Cities: Economic Restructuring and ... - CiteSeerX

Family Relations, 55 (July 2006), 345–360. Blackwell Publishing. Copyright 2006 by the National Council on Family Relations.

Beyond Gateway Cities: Economic Restructuring and Poverty Among Mexican Immigrant Families and Children* Martha Crowley

Daniel T. Lichter

Zhenchao Qian**

Abstract: We used data from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Samples to document poverty rates among native-born and foreign-born Mexicans living in the southwest and in new regions where many Mexican families have resettled. Our analysis focused on how changing patterns of employment have altered the risk of poverty among Mexican families and children. We demonstrate that the Mexican population dispersed widely throughout the United States during the 1990s and that Mexican workers, especially immigrants, residing outside the southwest had much lower rates of poverty. Yet, a rapid influx of Mexican immigrants is putting strain on communities struggling to meet their needs. We offer suggestions for family practitioners serving Mexican newcomers, whose circumstances differ greatly from those of local populations. Key Words: ethnicity/race issues, Hispanic families, poverty, refugee/immigrant populations, rural family.

Introduction Poverty is a fact of life for a disproportionate share of first- and second-generation Mexicans residing in the United States (Lichter, Qian, & Crowley, 2005). Family practitioners have assembled a pool of knowledge to draw upon in serving disadvantaged Mexicans in urban areas of the southwest, where most live and work (Morales & Salcido, 2001). However, Mexicans are increasingly residing elsewhere. Outside the southwest, economic restructuring, especially in low-wage, low-skill industrial sectors, has offered Mexican workers new opportunities for employment and better paying jobs. Many Mexican families have moved to small towns and rural areas of the midwest and southeast, and Mexican immigrants have increasingly bypassed

traditional gateway cities of the southwest in favor of inhabiting America’s heartland (Durand, Massey, & Charvet, 2000; Kandel & Cromartie, 2004; Lichter & Johnson, 2006). This regional redistribution of jobs and immigrants has potentially significant implications for the economic well-being of America’s Mexican population and for communities struggling to meet the needs of Latino newcomers. Yet, surprisingly little quantitative research has investigated whether changing settlement patterns have opened new avenues for Mexicans’ upward socioeconomic mobility or how these shifts may alter family practice in destination communities. The main objective of the present study was to better understand how new settlement trends have reshaped patterns of poverty among America’s growing Mexican-origin population. First, we used data from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Samples

*A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the annual meetings of the Southern Demographic Association, Hilton Head, North Carolina, October 2004. Support for this research was provided by a Population Center grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1 R21 HD047943-01) to Ohio State’s Initiative in Population Research and by a research grant (1 R01 HD43035-01) to Z.Q., principal investigator. **Martha Crowley is an Assistant Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology, at the North Carolina State University, Campus Box 8107, Raleigh, NC 27695 ([email protected]). Daniel T. Lichter is a Professor of Policy Analysis and Management, Department of Policy Analysis and Management, Ferris Family Professor of Life Course Studies, and Director of the Bronfenbrenner Life Course Center at Cornell University, 102 Martha Van Rensselaer Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853 (dtl28@ cornell.edu). Zhenchao Qian is an Associate Professor of Sociology and a Faculty Associate at the Initiative in Population Research, 190 North Oval Mall, Bricker Hall Room 300, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 ([email protected]).

346

Family Relations Volume 55, Number 3 July 2006

(IPUMS) to identify regional shifts in Mexican residence in the United States between 1990 and 2000 (Ruggles et al., 2004). Second, we documented economic circumstances among native-born and foreignborn Mexicans in the southwest and in regions where many Mexican families have resettled. Third, we evaluated how residential and employment patterns have reshaped the risk of poverty among Mexican families and children. As we demonstrate in this study, the dispersion of America’s Mexican immigrant population raises new questions about their economic and political incorporation into American society.

Place and Poverty Historically, high rates of poverty among loweducated Mexicans are reinforced by limited job opportunities in the colonias along the Rio Grande River and in the economically depressed barrios of southwest border cities in which many of them live and work (Allensworth & Rochin, 1996; Taylor, Martin, & Fix, 1997). Elsewhere, discrimination also bars many Mexican workers access to rewarding jobs. Lacking alternatives, Mexican immigrants are often steered into a limited number of economic sectors, saturating the low-skill, low-wage labor market and depressing hourly wages (Hauan, Landale, & Leicht, 2000). The result is that Mexican families are especially vulnerable economically. The low receipt and dollar value of public assistance provide a limited safety net, and new provisions in the 1996 welfare reform bill have increased restrictions on benefits to immigrants (Lichter & Crowley, 2002; Oropesa & Landale, 1997). Economic considerations have simultaneously pushed Mexicans out of the metro southwest and attracted them to other parts of the country where the demand for low-wage labor is high. In California, for example, the saturation of immigrant workers in urban labor markets has propelled Mexicans into nonmetro areas in search of work (Allensworth & Rochin, 1996). Poor schools, crime-ridden neighborhoods, and crowded, expensive housing have encouraged Mexicans to depart California, Texas, and other southwestern states altogether (Cantu, 1995; Kandel & Parrado, 2004). The political environment has been an additional factor in the case of immigrants. Beginning in the early 1990s, Mexican immigrants were thrust out of

California by unemployment and declining wages, along with growing anti-immigrant sentiment culminating in proposition 187 (Durand et al., 2000; Hernandez-Leon & Zuniga, 2000). The general amnesty provisions of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act offered immigrants freedom and courage to seek improved opportunities in other locales (Durand, Massey, & Capoferro, 2005). At the same time, the growing demand for cheap labor in low-wage industries created new employment opportunities and a better quality of life elsewhere. Meat processing is perhaps the most recognized occupational niche for Mexican workers in nontraditional destinations. Shifts in diet, farmexport policies, and retail demand for cut or prepackaged meat have increased the scale of food processing in rural areas. To reduce costs, producers deskilled and routinized production and shifted facilities from heavily unionized, urban employment centers toward nonmetro areas where land and labor costs are much lower and agricultural inputs much closer (Kandel & Parrado, 2004; Martin, Taylor, & Fix, 1996). Native Whites are often repelled by the unpleasant, difficult, and hazardous working conditions, and the industry’s deteriorating wages and flat job hierarchies do not appeal to those with other options (Martin et al., 1996). Job turnover rates are extraordinarily high, and resulting labor shortages have attracted Mexican workers seeking employment (Gouveia & Stull, 1997; Johnson-Webb, 2002; Stull, Broadway, & Griffith, 1995). The industry’s year-round work with limited wages and benefits allows Mexicans, and especially those with limited skills, to minimally support a family, buy a modest home, and enjoy a quality of life that many previously thought impossible. In response, Mexicans have increasingly relocated to parts of the upper midwest for jobs in turkey, beef, and pork processing and to the southeast for employment in poultry, meat, and fish processing plants (Gozdziak & Bump, 2004; Kandel & Parrado, 2004, 2005; Zuniga & Hernandez-Leon, 2005). Mexican workers are also moving to these regions for jobs in oil, timber, furniture, carpeting, textiles, and other nondurable manufacturing (HernandezLeon & Zuniga, 2000; Murphy, Blanchard, & Hill, 2001; Passel, 2004). Renewed population growth and economic development have stimulated additional employment opportunities in construction, hospitality, and other service industries in metro

Economic Restructuring and Poverty Among Mexican Immigrants Crowley et al.

areas of the south, west, and northeast (JohnsonWebb, 2002; Lamphere, Stepick, & Grenier, 1994; Saenz, 2004). In many cases, the appeal of economic opportunity is enhanced by employer recruitment efforts in Texas, California, and Mexico—reflecting an impression of Mexicans as willing to work hard, put in long hours, and endure unpleasant working conditions for low wages (Cantu, 1995; Martin et al., 1996).

Poverty among Mexican Families and Children Between 1990 and 2000, the Latino population doubled in the midwest and tripled in the southeast, while increasing by 70% overall (Lichter & Johnson, 2006). Mexicans’ new settlement patterns have important, but ambiguous, implications for changes in poverty and economic well-being among families and children. On the positive side, new employment opportunities in parts of the southeast and midwest are often superior to those left behind in poor Hispanic communities of the southwest. Mexican women are now resettling permanently alongside their spouses and starting families (Cantu, 1995; Hernandez-Leon & Zuniga, 2000). Tight labor markets outside of the southwest also have drawn Mexican women into the labor force, providing an additional hedge against poverty, especially for their children, whose high rates of poverty partially reflect low rates of maternal employment in Mexican families (Lichter & Landale, 1995). In sum, new economic opportunities, job stability, and the rise in dual-worker families suggest that these new settlement patterns may have helped reduce poverty among America’s Mexican-origin population. Yet, the full economic implications of population dispersal among Mexican workers and their families are not easily discerned. Many Mexicans outside the southwest are immigrants (Kandel & Cromartie, 2004; Lichter & Johnson, 2006). On the one hand, Mexican immigrants are strongly committed to work and the traditional family structure, and immigrant women are less likely to head single-family households with children (Cuciti & James, 1990; Wildsmith, 2004). On the other hand, immigrants tend to be younger than the native born, with less education, poorer English

347

skills, and larger families—all of which increase their risk of poverty (Cuciti & James). Large proportions of Mexican immigrants are also recently arrived, and many are undocumented (Passel, 2004). At the same time, some research suggests that Mexican immigrants who settle in the rural south or midwest may have resources lacking among their counterparts in the southwest. In a study of 52 communities in Mexico, men who immigrated to the midwest were more educated, more experienced in service or manufacturing work, more often documented, and more likely to have significant U.S. experience than those who moved instead to the southwest (McConnell & LeClere, 2002). Although nontraditional settlers are apparently pursuing improved employment opportunities, a large share of native- and foreign-born Mexican immigrants to the midwest and south have settled in nonmetro communities, where high poverty rates often reflect much lower wages and a less favorable mix of industries compared to urban labor markets (Lichter & Jensen, 2002). Significantly, poverty among Latino families declined faster than among Whites in the 1990s; yet, rural racial and ethnic minorities, including most Latino populations, continued to suffer disproportionately high rates of poverty (Kandel, 2003; Rogers, 2003). Mexican immigrants are especially ‘‘at risk’’ in rural areas. They are typically young, poorly educated, and badly paid—circumstances that increase the risk of poverty, especially in rural communities where Latino populations have grown rapidly (Effland & Butler, 1997; Rogers & Dagata, 2000). Not surprisingly, poverty rates are especially high among Mexican children—30% in 2000 (Lichter et al., 2005). Unlike most other disadvantaged minority children, Mexican children typically live in two-parent households with a working male head (Lichter & Landale, 1995). Yet, immigrant workers often have difficulty earning enough to lift their families out of poverty (Van Hook, Brown, & Kwenda, 2004). In 2000, 36% of first-generation Mexican children and 29% of second-generation children were poor, compared with 23% of thirdgeneration Mexican children (Lichter et al.). High poverty rates among today’s Mexican children suggest a pessimistic future when they age and enter the work force, where inadequate education, poor employment prospects, and low earnings increase risk of deprivation (Cuciti & James, 1990; Hauan et al., 2000).

348


To summarize, Mexicans are settling outside the southwest in an apparent response to improving employment opportunities. Yet, this shift’s potential to alleviate high rates of poverty among Mexicans remains unclear. On the one hand, employment opportunities in more economically advantageous industries should increase family income in comparison with economic need. On the other, nonmetro residence may depress wages and economic circumstances for minority and especially unskilled immigrant populations. Furthermore, demographic attributes, including immigrant status, duration of residence, family and personal attributes, and human capital and acculturation, may serve as resources or vulnerabilities in efforts to generate income exceeding families’ financial need. Immigrants are more vulnerable to poverty because they tend to receive lower wages and have less access to government safety nets. However, length of residence is a resource associated with acculturation, English acquisition, citizenship, and income, and reduces poverty for citizen and noncitizen immigrants (Kwon, Zuiker, & Bauer, 2004; Saenz, 2004). Family and personal factors, especially family structure, are also significant resources or vulnerabilities. Married-couple families, and especially dual-earner families, are far less likely to experience poverty compared to families with a single parent or income provider (Lichter et al., 2005). Children increase need without generating income, heightening families’ economic vulnerability. Finally, human capital (marketable work-related qualities such as experience, skills, and effort) and acculturation (cultural knowledge) are important resources in escaping poverty. Both increase Mexicans’ potential to secure income from work and serve as resources in efforts to escape poverty (Kwon et al., 2004; Tienda & Neidert, 1984).

The Present Study Despite recent attention to this Mexican population shift, few, if any, studies have examined whether Mexicans living in new settlement areas are financially better off or, just as importantly, why this might be the case. We sought to fill this gap by posing the following research questions. First, to what degree has the Mexican population shifted into nontraditional settlement regions? Second, how do regions compare with regard to aggregate economic

resources and vulnerabilities influencing the prevalence of poverty among Mexicans? Third, how do factors associated with this population shift, especially employment, shape the economic fortunes of Mexicans and their families? To answer these questions, we first outlined interregional shifts among Mexicans between 1990 and 2000, describing changes in the distribution of Mexican households and the racial and ethnic composition of regions. Second, we documented recent aggregate levels of economic resources and vulnerabilities with implications for poverty of native and immigrant Mexicans in five U.S. regions. Third, we fitted logistic regression models of household and child poverty—accounting for the effects of residence, immigration, family and personal attributes, human capital and acculturation, and employment. In the remainder of this paper, we describe our study and findings and discuss the implications of our research for family practitioners in destination communities. Economic need, communication difficulties, and social isolation to which immigrants are likely to be subject in new settlement destinations will create challenges for the communities Mexicans enter and practitioners serving these populations. Understanding how communities and practitioners may adjust to a rapid influx of Mexicans requires comprehending what draws this population and what resources are available to newcomers.

Method Data and Sample

Our analyses were based on data from the 1990 and 2000 5% IPUMS (Ruggles et al., 2004). Our national samples included 3.6 million cases in 1990 and 4.1 million in 2000 and were weighted to represent all U.S. households in which the householder is of working age (18 – 64). This sample included 147,503 Mexican households in 1990 and 227,909 in 2000. We also analyzed data for a secondary sample of (unmarried) Mexican children of age 17 or younger residing with a working-age householder. Children unrelated to the householder were excluded, with the exception of children of the householder’s unmarried cohabiting partner. For our purposes, each child was linked to the householder’s family and personal information and, in the case of


married- or cohabitating-couple households, to their spouse or unmarried partner. This sample included 371,788 children, and data were weighted to represent all Mexican children in 2000. Variables and measures

Poverty. Our measure of poverty was based on whether family income from all sources fell below the official family income threshold for family size and composition. Family income included all earnings and nonearned income (e.g., interest income) received during the previous year. This means that 2000 poverty status was based on 1999 income and poverty thresholds. Immigration. Mexicans born outside the United States, but not born abroad of American parents, were classified as immigrants with a dummy indicator of immigrant status. For immigrants, we measured the number of years since moving to the United States with an ordinal variable ranging from 1 to 5. Categories included 5 years or less, 6 – 10, 11 – 15, 16 – 20, and 211 years. Native-born Mexicans had values of zero for both immigrant status and years in the United States. Residence. We measured region and metro status of residence. However, regional distinctions meaningful for a given population did not necessarily fit neatly with census regional classifications. Specifically, Hispanics are most numerous in the southwestern United States, particularly Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, states the census parcels into a number of distinct regional categories. Following Saenz’s (2004) recent work on America’s Latino population, we defined these states as the southwest. We further followed Saenz in dividing remaining states into meaningful Hispanic settlement categories closely approximating existing regional classifications. Except for states in the southwest, those in the Mountain and Pacific divisions were considered to be the west, whereas those in the South Atlantic, East South Central, and West South Central divisions were labeled the southeast. The midwest consisted of the East and West North Central divisions, and the northeast included New England and the Middle Atlantic. Exceptions were Oklahoma and Ohio, classified as midwest and northeast, respectively. Individuals in metropolitan statistical areas were labeled metro; others were nonmetro. Family and personal attributes. Because Mexicans have large families, householders’ family structure

349

was measured with a combination of marital status and number (rather than simply presence) of children in the household (Cuciti & James, 1990). Categories included (a) married and childless, (b) married with one or two children, (c) married with three or more children, (d) single and childless, (e) single with one or two children, and (f) single with three or more children (the reference category). To account for the effect of dual-earning status on the odds of poverty, we also included a multiple-workers dummy, indicating that the householder was married and both spouses were employed. Finally, because women tend to earn less than men, we included a dummy indicator for female householders. Human capital and acculturation. Human capital and acculturation enhance Mexicans’ earnings capacity (Kwon et al., 2004; Tienda & Neidert, 1984). We measured work experience with age as a proxy, skill deficits were assessed with a dummy indicator for less than a high school education, and work effort was calculated with the number of weeks worked in the prior year. Finally, acculturation was measured with a dummy indicator for English skill (i.e., whether the householder spoke English exclusively or very well). Employment. The census identified householders with a three-digit industrial code. Industries varied in the nature of work and in worker status, skills, and remuneration. We used dummy indicators to measure industrial sector. Unlike most previous studies, we set apart industries in which Mexicans are reportedly concentrated. For example, we considered construction and agriculture (agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting). Nondurable manufacturing included meat and food processing along with all other light manufacturing industries. Low service and temporary industries included temporary employment and services associated with buildings, landscaping, food, lodging, and personal needs. High-wage industries (the reference category) were durable or heavy manufacturing; mining; wholesale trade, transportation, and warehousing; utilities; information and communication; public administration; armed forces; finance, insurance and real estate (except consumer rentals); and professional, scientific, and management services. Average-wage industries were those in retail trade; consumer rentals; art, entertainment, and recreation (except food and lodging); education, health, funeral, and social services; religious, civic, labor, and business organizations; mechanical and electrical repair; and business support


350

services (except those classified elsewhere). Individuals who were not employed were classified as not in the labor force or unemployed, depending on employment status. Child poverty. We used parallel variables in our analysis of child poverty, with several exceptions. First, the individual-level variables from the household analysis become parental variables. Because two-parent Mexican families have lower rates of maternal employment (Lichter & Landale, 1995), we drew parental human capital and employment data from the male parent (or stepparent), if one was present. Second, our typology of family structure excluded childless families because, by definition, no such families exist in our child-based sample. Third, rather than using a dummy category for female, as we did in the householder analysis, we included a dummy indicator for whether children lived in a female-headed family.

Findings Residential Patterns

Table 1 provides snapshots of regional distributions of households (with working-age householders) for various racial and ethnic groups, including Mexicans. The upper panel describes regional shifts in the percentage of Mexicans between 1990 and 2000. The Mexican portion of the working-age householder population increased from 4.1 to 5.5% during the 1990s. The bulk of this change was attributable to Mexican immigrants, whose population share increased by more than 75%. Mexicans’ share of households rose by about 17% in the southwest but increased by greater percentages elsewhere. Between 1990 and 2000, the Mexican share of the householder population roughly doubled in the northeast, midwest, and west, and tripled in the southeast. In the midwest and southeast, nonmetro growth outpaced metro increases. The lower panel illustrates that a smaller share of all Mexicans lived in the southwest in 2000, although their representation increased in every other region. Only three quarters of Mexican householders lived in the southwest in 2000, compared with 83% in 1990. Much of this shift was attributable to redistribution of immigrants, although nonimmigrants also increasingly lived outside the southwest. Mexican growth was particularly evident in the nonmetro

midwest and southeast, owing chiefly to shifts among Mexican immigrants. Immigrant population shares increased by about 80% in the nonmetro midwest and rose by 180% in the nonmetro southeast. Resources and vulnerabilities

In Table 2, we compare immigrants and natives in each of our five regions in terms of their poverty rates and aggregate levels of factors that serve as resources (increasing income potential) or as vulnerabilities (reducing income potential or increasing economic need) in escaping poverty. These included length of residence, personal and family attributes (family configuration, gender, and presence of multiple workers), levels of human capital and acculturation (age, education, work effort, and English skill), and the proportions employed in industrial sectors associated with Mexican migration or characterized by relatively high or low incomes. Compared with native-born Mexicans, Mexican immigrants had higher poverty, fewer resources, and greater economic vulnerability. They also were more likely to be married but with more children than native-born Mexicans. In addition, they were more likely to be employed in low-wage industries, especially in the service and temporary work sectors, and were far less likely to be in high-wage industries. Significantly, immigrant Mexicans (householders) living outside the southwest were younger, more often male, more recently arrived, and somewhat more likely to possess English language skills. Mexican immigrants in the southwest worked an average of 39 weeks per year and 25% lived in poverty, whereas those in the midwest worked an average of 41 weeks and had a poverty rate of 18%. Less significant disparities were also apparent in the southeast and west. Regional differences were similar, but smaller, among native-born Mexicans. Our quantitative findings reinforce qualitative accounts of regional Mexican employment patterns (e.g., Lamphere et al., 1994; Stull et al., 1995). In the southeast, for example, 21% of working-age immigrant Mexican householders were employed in the construction industry, as compared to rates ranging from 8 to 12% in other regions. Moreover, 10% of Mexicans in the southeast and 13% in the midwest were employed in nondurable manufacturing (compared with 6 – 8% elsewhere), and about 40% of these jobs are in meat, fish, or poultry processing.


351

Table 1. Householders’ Percent Mexican by Place, and Residential Distribution of Mexican Householders, 1990 – 2000 % Mexican

Southwest Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan Northeast Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan Midwest Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan Southeast Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan West Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan Total United States Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan

% Mexican Native

1990

2000

1990

2000

1990

2000

15.5 15.4 15.9 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.7 2.2 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.3 2.5 2.4 2.7 4.1 4.9 2.1

18.2 18.6 15.3 0.6 0.7 0.4 3.0 3.6 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.1 4.6 5.0 3.8 5.5 6.3 2.9

6.8 7.1 4.8 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.8 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.8 2.3 0.7

10.1 10.5 6.6 0.4 0.5 0.1 1.8 2.3 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 2.8 3.0 2.3 3.2 3.7 1.5

8.7 8.4 11.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.9 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.5 1.5 1.6 2.3 2.7 1.5

8.1 8.0 8.6 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.1 1.3 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.3 1.8 1.9 1.5 2.3 2.6 1.4

% Mexicans

Southwest Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan Northeast Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan Midwest Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan Southeast Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan West Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan Total United States Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan

% Mexican Immigrant

% Mexican Immigrant

% Mexican Native

1990

2000

1990

2000

1990

2000

83.1 72.3 10.8 1.7 1.4 0.3 8.8 7.3 1.5 2.8 1.9 0.9 3.6 2.2 1.4 100.0 85.1 14.9

74.7 67.6 7.1 2.6 2.4 0.3 11.0 9.1 1.8 6.3 4.6 1.7 5.4 4.0 1.4 100.0 87.7 12.3

83.2 75.7 7.5 1.7 1.5 0.1 9.3 8.4 0.9 2.6 1.8 0.8 3.3 2.0 1.3 100.0 89.4 10.6

71.8 66.5 5.4 2.9 2.8 0.1 11.7 10.1 1.6 7.8 5.6 2.2 5.8 4.3 1.5 100.0 89.2 10.8

83.0 69.6 13.4 1.8 1.3 0.4 8.4 6.4 2.0 2.9 2.0 0.9 3.9 2.4 1.5 100.0 81.7 18.3

78.6 69.1 9.6 2.3 1.8 0.4 10.0 7.8 2.1 4.2 3.2 1.0 5.0 3.7 1.3 100.0 85.6 14.4

Note. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Integrated Public Use Microdata Samples 5%.

25

11 14 20 17 38

10 36 31 10 8 4 22 21 37 69 39 27 4 12 6 1 12 14 19 28 5 94,503

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

14 32 14 22 14 4 34 28 38 26 41 87 1 7 4 0 6 26 32 20 4 75,770

Immigrant

17

Note. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Integrated Public Use Microdata Samples 5%. a n/a denotes not applicable.

Poverty % in Poverty Immigration Years in United States (immigrants only) % 5 years or less % 6 – 10 years % 11 – 15 years % 16 – 20 years % 21 years or more Personal and family attributes Family configuration % married, 0 children % married, 1 – 2 children % married, 31 children % single, 0 children % single, 1 – 2 children % single, 31 children % female % with multiple workers in family Human capital and acculturation Median age % dropped out of high school Average number of weeks worked past year % speaks English very well Industry and labor market status % in agriculture % in construction % in nondurable manufacturing % in meat processing % in low service or temporary work % in average-wage industries % in high-wage industries % not in the labor force % unemployed N

Native

Southwest

1 5 6 0 6 25 35 18 4 2,176

35 19 40 90

15 27 7 34 13 3 37 25

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

16

Native

2 8 8 0 21 12 15 29 4 3,835

32 61 38 25

16 33 22 18 8 4 21 18

24 25 26 12 14

25

Immigrant

Northeast

Table 2. Resources and Vulnerabilities of Adult Working-Age Mexican Householders, 2000 a

1 6 8 2 6 21 36 18 4 9,602

36 25 42 88

15 29 12 27 14 4 35 28

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

15

Native

2 9 13 5 13 10 24 25 4 15,368

35 65 41 26

12 38 27 13 7 3 17 25

18 18 20 14 31

18

Immigrant

Midwest

2 9 5 1 8 20 35 17 4 4,032

35 27 41 88

18 30 11 26 12 3 33 27

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

16

Native

8 21 10 4 13 8 16 22 4 10,275

32 69 40 25

18 33 21 19 6 3 15 20

33 22 20 11 14

24

Immigrant

Southeast

2 8 5 0 8 25 31 16 5 4,776

36 23 41 91

16 29 12 25 13 4 34 29

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

16

Native

11 11 6 1 15 12 15 24 6 7,572

34 69 40 27

11 36 28 14 7 4 18 24

17 20 24 15 24

23

Immigrant

West

352 Family Relations Volume 55, Number 3 July 2006


Clearly, Mexican immigrants outside the southwest had high rates of employment in low-wage, low-skill industries, including agriculture and service. Unemployment rates, however, were similar across regions. Poverty

Table 3 displays the odds of poverty from logistic regression models. The inclusion of additional sets of covariates in successive models improved the fit of the model, as indicated by declines in the 22 log likelihood. All coefficients are significant at p , .05, except where noted. The results of Model 1 indicated that the odds of poverty among immigrant Mexicans were nearly triple those of the native born. But these odds declined by about 16% for each additional 5 years in the United States, a clear indication that economic incorporation into American society has been progressing. Significantly, the risk of poverty among immigrants changed little with the addition of region and metro status in Model 2. At the same time, regional differences in poverty for Mexicans were large. Poverty was lower outside the southwest, with odds reduced by 13% in the northeast, 33% in the midwest, 24% in the southeast, and 20% in west. The odds of poverty were 32% higher in nonmetro areas (most nonmetro area residents live in southwest). Model 3 introduced family and personal attributes, including family structure, gender, and the presence of multiple workers. These characteristics affected the odds of poverty as predicted but did not explain the high poverty rates among immigrants. Results did, however, suggest that some of the regional variation can be explained by differences in family and personal characteristics (i.e., region affects shift toward 1.0). Clearly, part of the advantage of residence outside the southwest reflects the selection of Mexican families with lower risks of poverty (e.g., married-couple families, families with fewer children, or both) into these regions. Compared with single parents with three or more children, other kinds of families had 26 – 73% lower odds of poverty. The number of children was an important predictor of poverty regardless of marital status. Childless householders were 70 – 73% less likely to be poor than were single householders with three or more children. Families with one or two children were slightly more disadvantaged, with poverty odds 59 – 64% lower than those of our reference category. Among those with three or more children,

353

marriage reduced the odds of poverty by 26%. Even after controlling for all other variables introduced by this point, women were more than twice as likely as men to be in poverty. Compared to those in singleworker households, the odds of poverty for those in multiple-worker households were 80% lower. In contrast to family and personal attributes, the human capital and acculturation variables introduced in Model 4 explained a large portion of the effect of immigrant status, but none of the effect of residence outside the southwest, as indicated by slightly stronger relationships between our region variables and poverty. For example, each additional year of age and week of work reduced the odds of poverty by 4 and 5%, respectively. The odds of poverty were 81% higher among those with less than high school education than for those with more education, whereas speaking English ‘‘very well’’ reduced odds of poverty by 16%. Overall, the nativity effect weakened significantly when human capital variables were taken into account; the coefficient for nativity declined from 3.27 in Model 3 to 1.57 in Model 4. Industrial sectors were introduced in Model 5. Surprisingly, industrial sector explained little, if any, of the putative economic benefits associated with living and working outside the southwest or the effect of immigrant status. At the same time, the kinds of work Mexicans did clearly affected their odds of poverty. Not surprisingly, workers in highwage industries had lower odds of poverty than those working in other industrial sectors. Odds of poverty for workers in agriculture and low service and temporary work were more than twice those of workers in high-wage industries. In contrast, employment in construction and nondurable manufacturing (including meat processing), both of which induce Mexicans to migrate out of the southwest, increased odds of poverty by less than a third relative to high-wage industries. Results for parallel analyses for our sample of Mexican children, presented in Table 4, were strikingly similar. These analyses confirmed that residence outside of the southwest benefits Mexican householders and children. Industries identified by existing research as drawing Mexicans to these places had separate effects that did not account for the regional economic advantage. Yet, Mexicans located outside of the southwest, and in two of the less disadvantaged industries (construction and nondurable manufacturing), were disproportionately immigrants who are at increased risk of poverty.


354

Table 3. Logistic Regression for Variables Predicting Poverty Among Mexican Heads of Household, 2000 Model 1 B

SE B eB

Model 2 B

Model 3

SE B eB

B

SE B eB

Model 4 B

SE B

Model 5 eB

B

SE B

eB

Immigrant statusa Immigrant 1.04 (.02) 2.82 1.12 (.02) 3.06 1.19 (.02) 3.27 0.45 (.03) 1.57 0.39 (.03) 1.48 Years in USA 20.18 (.00) 0.84 20.19 (.00) 0.82 20.23 (.00) 0.79 20.11 (.01) 0.89 20.11 (.01) 0.90 Residence Regionb Northeast 20.14 (.03) 0.87 20.11 (.03) 0.90 20.21 (.04) 0.81 20.22 (.04) 0.80 Midwest 20.39 (.02) 0.67 20.33 (.02) 0.72 20.37 (.02) 0.69 20.35 (.02) 0.71 Southeast 20.27 (.02) 0.76 20.16 (.02) 0.85 20.22 (.03) 0.80 20.23 (.03) 0.79 West 20.23 (.02) 0.80 20.17 (.02) 0.84 20.20 (.03) 0.82 20.24 (.03) 0.79 Nonmetropolitan 0.28 (.02) 1.32 0.35 (.02) 1.42 0.31 (.02) 1.37 0.28 (.02) 1.33 Family and personal attributes Family configurationc Married, 0 children 21.30 (.03) 0.27 21.65 (.03) 0.19 21.64 (.03) 0.19 Married, 1–2 children 21.02 (.03) 0.36 21.28 (.03) 0.28 21.23 (.03) 0.29 Married, 31 children 20.31 (.03) 0.74 20.46 (.03) 0.63 20.41 (.03) 0.66 Single, 0 children 21.20 (.03) 0.30 21.33 (.03) 0.26 21.35 (.03) 0.26 Single, 1–2 children 20.88 (.03) 0.41 20.88 (.03) 0.42 20.88 (.03) 0.41 Female 0.74 (.01) 2.09 0.28 (.01) 1.32 0.25 (.02) 1.29 Multiple workers 21.62 (.02) 0.20 21.18 (.02) 0.31 21.33 (.02) 0.26 Human capital and acculturation Age 20.04 (.00) 0.96 20.04 (.00) 0.96 High school dropout 0.60 (.01) 1.81 0.57 (.01) 1.77 Number of weeks worked 20.05 (.00) 0.95 20.05 (.00) 0.95 Speaks English only/very well 20.18 (.02) 0.84 20.17 (.02) 0.85 Industry and labor market statusd Agriculture 0.77 (.04) 2.17 Construction 0.28 (.03) 1.33 Nondurable manufacturing 0.27 (.03) 1.31 Low service and temporary 0.83 (.02) 2.29 Average-wage industry 0.47 (.02) 1.60 Not in the labor force 20.03 (.02) 0.97NS Unemployed 0.37 (.03) 1.45 Constant 22 Log Likelihood

21.59 (.01) 0.20 21.57 (.01) 0.21 20.71 (.03) 0.49 231,238 230,384 208,772

2.69 (.04) 14.66 173,838

2.54 (.05) 12.73 171,643

Note. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Integrated Public Use Microdata Samples 5%; eB ¼ exponential B (odds ratio); NS ¼ nonsignificance at p , .05. a Natives’ scores are zero. b Southwest is reference. c Single, 31 children is reference. d High-wage industry is reference.

In additional analyses (not shown), we added interactions to our final models to determine whether nativity shaped poverty within industries and regions. We found significant interactions between immigrant status and all the industrial categories, indicating that immigrants were less likely to be in poverty than were natives in the same industries, especially in industries argued to draw Mexicans out of the southwest (e.g., nondurable manufacturing and

construction). The exception was in high-wage industries, where immigrants were at a distinct disadvantage. The interactions between immigrant status and region revealed that, in the southwest, Mexican immigrants’ odds of poverty were more than double those of natives. But outside the southwest, Mexican immigrants were less likely to live in poverty than are Mexican natives in the same region. In the midwest, for example, immigrants were 38% less likely to be poor


355

Table 4. Logistic Regression for Variables Predicting Poverty Among Mexican Children, 2000 Model 1 B

SE B eB

Model 2 B

Model 3

SE B eB

B

SE B eB

Model 4 B

SE B eB

Model 5 B

SE B

eB

Parental immigrant statusa Immigrant 1.11 (.01) 3.03 1.16 (.01) 3.19 1.34 (.01) 3.84 0.69 (.02) 1.99 0.63 (.02) 1.87 Years in USA 20.20 (.00) 0.82 20.21 (.00) 0.81 20.24 (.00) 0.79 20.15 (.00) 0.86 20.14 (.00) 0.87 Residence Regionb Northeast 20.15 (.02) 0.86 20.17 (.03) 0.84 20.22 (.03) 0.80 20.25 (.03) 0.78 Midwest 20.46 (.01) 0.63 20.44 (.01) 0.64 20.45 (.02) 0.64 20.41 (.02) 0.66 Southeast 20.19 (.02) 0.83 20.13 (.02) 0.88 20.15 (.02) 0.86 20.15 (.02) 0.86 West 20.21 (.02) 0.81 20.18 (.02) 0.83 20.20 (.02) 0.82 20.24 (.02) 0.78 Nonmetropolitan 0.24 (.01) 1.27 0.30 (.01) 1.35 0.28 (.01) 1.33 0.25 (.01) 1.28 Family attributes Family configurationc Married couple, 1–2 children 20.79 (.02) 0.45 20.88 (.02) 0.41 20.85 (.02) 0.43 Married couple, 31 children 20.09 (.01) 0.92 20.09 (.02) 0.91 20.06 (.02) 0.94 Single parent, 1–2 children 20.87 (.02) 0.42 20.84 (.02) 0.43 20.85 (.02) 0.43 Female-headed 1.14 (.01) 3.14 0.84 (.01) 2.32 0.79 (.01) 2.21 Multiple workers 21.43 (.01) 0.24 21.12 (.01) 0.33 21.25 (.01) 0.29 Parental human capital and acculturation Age 20.04 (.00) 0.96 20.04 (.00) 0.96 High school dropout 20.19 (.01) 0.83 20.18 (.01) 0.84 Number of weeks worked 0.69 (.01) 1.99 0.66 (.01) 1.94 Speaks English only/very well 20.04 (.00) 0.96 20.05 (.00) 0.95 Parental industry and labor market statusd Agriculture 0.80 (.02) 2.24 Construction 0.30 (.02) 1.35 Nondurable manufacturing 0.23 (.02) 1.26 Low service and temporary 0.82 (.02) 2.26 Average-wage industry 0.44 (.02) 1.55 Not in the labor force 20.01 (.02) 0.99 NS Unemployed 0.36 (.02) 1.43 Constant 22 Log Likelihood

21.24 (.01) 0.29 21.21 (.01) 0.30 20.88 (.02) 0.41 431,915 430,140 380,467

2.22 (.03) 9.25 329,072

2.10 (.03) 8.13 324,927

Note. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Integrated Public Use Microdata Samples 5%; eB ¼ exponential B (odds ratio); NS ¼ nonsignificance at p , .05. a Natives’ scores are zero. b Southwest is reference. c Single, 31 children is reference. d High-wage industry is reference.

than were the native born. An additional interaction also revealed that Mexican immigrants had lower odds of poverty than natives in nonmetro locales.

Discussion Our goal was to evaluate whether emerging Mexican settlement patterns and changing regional economic opportunities have improved the economic well-

being of Mexican families and their children. Our analyses are based on 5% IPUMS, a national sample weighted to represent all Mexican households with a working-age head (Ruggles et al., 2004). Although a successful public relations campaign helped census takers to reach unprecedented numbers of undocumented immigrants in 2000, our data are undoubtedly subject to undercounts of undocumented Mexicans (Passel, 2002). Two factors lead us to believe that a probable undercount does not significantly alter

356


our findings. First, undocumented Mexicans do not appear to be disproportionately concentrated in a particular region relative to the rest of the Mexican population (Fix & Passel, 2001; Passel). Second, there is little reason to suspect that the process relating poverty to region, employment, and personal and family characteristics would vary by legal status of residents. Although undocumented immigrants are certainly vulnerable to many forms of abuse, immigrants’ overall economic disadvantage is attributable chiefly to deficits in education and acculturation. These factors are far more significant for producing diverging economic fortunes of immigrants and natives than are the differences in legal status among immigrants. Our study demonstrates that Mexicans dispersed widely throughout the United States during the 1990s, especially in the midwest and south. The conventional wisdom has been that geographic and economic mobility go hand in hand; to get somewhere in life often means having to go somewhere else. Indeed, our results indicate that the economic well-being of Mexican families is inextricably linked to place of residence. Poverty rates were consistently lowest in the midwest, especially among immigrants. The growth of jobs in new destination regions has apparently provided Mexican families with low-skill, low-wage work opportunities unavailable to them in their places of origin. These new job opportunities, often in construction and manufacturing, often pay better than jobs in agriculture or other service industries. Our results also indicate that Mexicans living in new destination regions had lower rates of poverty than expected, given their demographic and economic background, and lower rates of poverty than Mexicans with similar characteristics residing in the southwest. New destinations and the expanded industrial opportunities also appear to benefit immigrants more than natives, perhaps because immigrants are more ambitious, healthier, and better able to work more hours or hold more jobs. Employer preference, stemming from assumptions about immigrants’ willingness to work hard, put in long hours, and endure poor working conditions and lower wages, may also, paradoxically, translate into an immigrant economic advantage in the labor market (Hernandez-Leon & Zuniga, 2000; Johnson-Webb, 2002). At the same time, many transplanted Mexicans have resettled in nonmetro areas, where poverty rates among Mexicans are roughly one third higher than

that in metro places. And many transplanted Mexicans are also immigrants, with unusually high poverty risks. The implication is that rural destinations, especially outside of the southwest, may have become the new rural ‘‘ghettos’’ for poor Mexican families. As such, this demographic shift presents challenges for both Mexicans and local communities, particularly with regard to meeting newcomers’ material needs and achieving social integration.

Implications Communities are struggling to address the challenges of rapid growth and cultural shifts arising out of the social and economic changes created by relocating Mexicans (Gozdziak & Bump, 2004). Specifically, language barriers, social integration, and pressures placed on local services are pressing and costly matters. Communities with rapidly growing Mexican populations face demands for assistance in crossing the language barrier and strain to provide adequate housing, police, health care, and social and welfare services. Local officials and long-term residents worry about housing shortages, rising crime, competition for available jobs, declining community health, and rising property taxes needed to support schools that serve Mexican children lacking English language skills (Kernek, 2001; Martin et al., 1996). Mexican newcomers are also confronting tremendous obstacles as they attempt to establish themselves in new locales. Although lured to settlement destinations for work, many have few resources upon relocation, earn relatively low wages, and face social and cultural dislocation along with economic need. Familiar patterns may no longer fit. For instance, opportunities for women may bolster Mexican families’ economic standing but also challenge traditional gender expectations, with implications for marital discord and family disruption. Adaptation

Coping and adaptation skills promote resilience in the face of hardship and change, helping families to move forward and preventing further deterioration of their circumstances. Families at risk benefit from ‘‘shock absorbers,’’ including flexibility and connectedness in family interaction and social support from other community members (Walsh, 1998). Assistance


with communication and problem-solving skills can help newcomer families interact in a mutually supportive, collaborative style that promotes adaptation to social, economic, and cultural relocation, and reinforces marital strength. Workshops and multifamily groups, which foster resilience along with social support, may encourage problem solving, communication, and social networks (Walsh). Much of the work in reaching Mexican newcomers and assisting in adjustment will be taken up by family practitioners fostering family functioning and social integration, along with physical and mental health. Mexicans as a distinct ethnic group are not well represented in the social work literature, and the specific needs of Mexicans outside the southwest have received even less attention (Morales & Salcido, 2001). Yet, existing research points to specific obstacles and potential solutions for serving this population. Clearly, language is a tremendous barrier for Mexicans living outside the southwest facing problems ranging from illness to domestic violence (Casey, Blewett, & Call, 2004; Murdaugh, Hunt, Sowell, & Santana, 2004). Transportation and a lack of insurance also present significant obstacles. Perhaps most devastating to social work practice in this context is newcomers’ alienation from the broader community, owing to prejudice, discrimination, residential segregation, and harassment from local police and immigration authorities (Cantu, 1995; Martin et al., 1996; Zuniga & Hernandez-Leon, 2005). Negative interactions with local populations or authorities easily translate into mistrust, even of social service providers. Resistance to practitioners’ intervention should not be interpreted as opposition to aid but rather as a response to past experiences (Walsh, 1998). Community outreach, support groups, and home visits can help to overcome challenges associated with trust by communicating to newcomers that practitioners are invested in serving them. Home visitation programs are a beneficial but costly alternative to clinic visits, and at-risk Hispanics appear to be particularly amenable to this form of intervention, at least with regard to parenting (Middlemiss & McGuigan, 2005). A more feasible alternative is focus groups and group education programs, found to be highly effective in strengthening Latino families (Barron-McKeagney, Woody, & D’Souza, 2002). Ensuring attendance may require persistence and effort (Umana-Taylor & Bamaca, 2004). However, a potential reward beyond the focus of the group

357

effort is improved social support. In the absence of family ties, alternative relationships may help to alleviate depression and marital strain (Aranda, Castaneda, Lee, & Sobel, 2001). Cultural Awareness

Another significant obstacle to practitioners serving Mexican newcomers is cultural difference. Practitioners must abandon assumptions about ‘‘normal’’ family patterns based on their own cultural expectations and experiences. Rather, it is necessary to become familiar with their assumptions along with those of their clients in order to help newcomers fit their own cultural practices with their current community settings, planning action that best suits clients and their families’ needs (Walsh, 1998). Because belief systems are at the core of perceptions, coping practices, and problem solving, it is imperative that practitioners become familiar with, affirm, and employ cultural beliefs that promote family resilience (Walsh). Achieving this does not require a similar ethnic background but rather a culturally sensitive clinical style that demonstrates awareness of cultural communication patterns, reasoning style, and thought processes (Taylor-Brown, Garcia, & Kingson, 2001; Yuhwa, Organista, Manzo, Wong, & Phung, 2001). Stories, rituals, and communication patterns are links to heritage, identity, and pride, which serve as resources in challenging situations, especially for migrants (Walsh, 1998). Practitioners may use these as tools in practice. For instance, use of dichos, or proverbs common in Latino cultures, demonstrates knowledge of the experience of Latinos and simultaneously overcomes resistance and secures motivation in clinical practice (Zuniga, 1992). Moreover, it demonstrates cultural sensitivity and respect. Where it is not possible to acquire Spanish or knowledge of dichos, practitioners may encourage client reception and satisfaction from simple displays of respectfulness, concern, and trustworthiness, especially toward the undocumented (Gomez, Zurcher, Farris, & Becker, 1985; Zuniga, 2004). Training in Latino culture and issues facing immigrant Latinos would assist practitioners in this regard. Such training would also assist practitioners in new settlement areas in recognizing resources in Latino communities that can help to strengthen family resilience in the face of social upheaval and economic deprivation. Two significant resources in

358


this regard are the Mexican culture’s emphasis on religiosity and Mexican families’ commitment to traditional, two-parent households. First, because Mexicans are strongly committed to religion, it is possible to reach out to those in need through churches and private, often faith-based, social groups. Many such organizations are currently active in providing Mexicans with information, resources, and material assistance, while also serving as a cultural link to others in the community (Gozdziak & Bump, 2004; Kernek, 2001). Second, given the significance of family structure for economic well-being, Mexican families’ commitment to traditional two-parent households appears to be a significant resource to draw upon in limiting economic deprivation and promoting family resilience. Residence in nontraditional settlement areas enhances Mexicans’ economic well-being by reducing odds of poverty. Yet, a retreat from marriage in nontraditional settlement areas would nullify the advantage of migration. Promoting resilience among existing families subject to interpersonal tension from social, cultural, or economic distress is a means to protect the material gains made by Mexicans settling in new destinations. Such practices are perhaps more relevant for this population than are the marriage promotion policies increasingly advanced as the solution to economic deprivation (Lichter et al., 2005). Policy

Perhaps even more beneficial would be broader social and economic policies that would help Mexicans not only to ‘‘beat the odds’’ of economic deprivation but also to actually change their odds of experiencing poverty in the first place (Seccombe, 2002). Wage increases, universal health care, and enhanced earned income tax credits have the potential to help both poor and nonpoor working Mexicans in new destinations and elsewhere. We are hopeful that practitioner and policy intervention will help to block the transfer of relocating Mexicans’ social disadvantage to their children. However, Mexican success in new destinations will also depend heavily on investments in education. Latino immigrant children face serious barriers to educational progress and achievement, compounded by poor physical health and lack of health care coverage, which are particularly prevalent among children of Mexican immigrants (Hernandez & Charney, 1998). The influx of Latinos also presents new fiscal

and budgetary concerns for schools in the form of overcrowding, language remediation, and cultural barriers, issues that many schools are simply not equipped to handle. The good news for local communities is that the influx of Mexicans is providing economic development, which may be used to assist in meeting newcomers’ needs. In many rural communities, Mexicans have arrested long-term declines in population and bolstered the local supply of willing workers (Lichter & Johnson, 2006; O’Hare & Johnson, 2004). New tax dollars and consumer spending by Mexicans have, in some cases, revitalized stagnant local economies and strengthened struggling businesses (Kernek, 2001).

Conclusions In the final analysis, the breakdown in ethnic enclaves in the southwest and regional economic restructuring suggest that Mexican populations will continue to grow over the foreseeable future in America’s new immigrant destinations. The economic prosperity of newly arriving Mexicans is far from assured, however. They face high rates of poverty by contemporary standards. Moreover, the economic and cultural incorporation of Mexican workers and their families has proceeded unevenly across the new destination communities (Donato, Stainback, & Bankston, 2005; Gozdziak & Bump, 2004). Clearly, local leaders, practitioners, and longtime residents will be challenged by the unanticipated social and material needs of Mexican newcomers in destination communities, while maintaining positive intergroup relations and promoting cultural understanding.

References Allensworth, E. M., & Rochin, R. I. (1996). White exodus, Latino repopulation, and community well-being: Trends in California’s rural communities (JSRI Research Report No. 13). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Julian Samora Research Institute. Aranda, M. P., Castaneda, I., Lee, P.-J., & Sobel, E. (2001). Stress, social support, and coping as predictors of depressive symptoms: Gender differences among Mexican Americans. Social Work Research, 25(1), 37–48. Barron-McKeagney, T., Woody, J. D., & D’Souza, H. J. (2002). Mentoring at-risk Latino children and their parents: Analysis of the parentchild relationship. Families in Society, 83, 285–292.


Cantu, L. (1995). The peripheralization of rural America: A case study of Latino migrants in America’s heartland. Sociological Perspectives, 3, 399–414. Casey, M. M., Blewett, L. A., & Call, K. T. (2004). Providing health care to Latino immigrants: Community-based efforts in the rural Midwest. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 1709–1711. Cuciti, P., & James, F. (1990). A comparison of Black and Hispanic poverty in large cities of the Southwest. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 12(1), 50–75. Donato, K. M., Stainback, M., & Bankston, C. L., III. (2005). The economic incorporation of Mexican immigrants in southern Louisiana: A tale of two cities. In V. Zuniga & R. Hernandez-Leon (Eds.), New destinations: Mexican immigration in the United States (pp. 76–100). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Durand, J., Massey, D. S., & Capoferro, C. (2005). The new geography of Mexican immigration. In V. Zuniga & R. Hernandez-Leon (Eds.), New destinations: Mexican immigration in the United States (pp. 1–20). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Durand, J., Massey, D. S., & Charvet, F. (2000). The changing geography of Mexican immigration to the United States: 1910–1996. Social Science Quarterly, 81(1), 1–15. Effland, A. B., & Butler, M. A. (1997). Fewer immigrants settle in nonmetro areas and most fare less well than metro immigrants. Rural Conditions and Trends, 8(2), 60–65. Fix, M. E., & Passel, J. S. (2001). U.S. immigration at the beginning of the 21st century. Retrieved July 20, 2005, from the Urban Institute Web site: http://www.urban.org/urlprint.cfm?ID=7321 Gomez, E., Zurcher, L. A., Farris, B. E., & Becker, R. E. (1985). A study of psychosocial casework with Chicanos. Social Work, 30, 477–482. Gouveia, L., & Stull, D. (1997). Latino immigrants, meatpacking, and rural communities: A case study of Lexington, Nebraska (JSRI Research Report No. 26). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Julian Samora Research Institute. Gozdziak, E. M., & Bump, M. N. (2004). Poultry, apples, and new immigrants in the rural communities of the Shenandoah Valley: An ethnographic case study. International Migration, 42(1), 149–164. Hauan, S. M., Landale, N. S., & Leicht, K. T. (2000). Poverty and work effort among urban Latino men. Work and Occupations, 27, 188–222. Hernandez, D. J., & Charney, E. (Eds.). (1998). From generation to generation: The health and well-being of children in immigrant families. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Hernandez-Leon, R., & Zuniga, V. (2000). Making carpet by the mile: The emergence of a Mexican immigrant community in an industrial region of the U.S. historic South. Social Science Quarterly, 81(1), 49–66. Johnson-Webb, K. D. (2002). Employer recruitment and Hispanic labor migration: North Carolina urban areas at the end of the millennium. Professional Geographer, 54, 406–421. Kandel, W. (2003). Race and ethnicity in rural America: Measures of economic well being (Economic Research Service Brief). Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture. Kandel, W., & Cromartie, J. (2004). New patterns of Hispanic settlement in rural America (Rural Development Research Report No. 99). Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Kandel, W., & Parrado, E. (2004). Hispanics in the American South and the transformation of the poultry industry. In D. D. Arreola (Ed.), Hispanic spaces, Latino places: Community and cultural diversity in contemporary America (pp. 255–276). Austin: University of Texas Press. Kandel, W., & Parrado, E. (2005). Restructuring of the US meat processing industry and new Hispanic migrant destinations. Population and Development Review, 31, 447–471. Kernek, L. (2001, September). Growing Pains. Illinois Issues . Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/features/2001sept/ hispanic.html Kwon, H.-K., Zuiker, V. S., & Bauer, J. W. (2004). Factors associated with the poverty status of Asian immigrant householders by citizenship status. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 25(1), 101–120. Lamphere, L., Stepick, A., & Grenier, G. (Eds.). (1994). Newcomers in the workplace: Immigrants and the restructuring of the U.S. economy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Lichter, D. T., & Crowley, M. (2002). Poverty in America: Beyond welfare reform. Population Bulletin, 57(2), 3–36.

359

Lichter, D. T., & Jensen, L. (2002). Rural America in transition: Poverty and welfare at the turn of the 21st century. In B. A. Weber, G. J. Duncan, & L. E. Whitener (Eds.), Rural dimensions of welfare reform (pp. 77–110). Kalamazo, MI: Upjohn Institute. Lichter, D. T., & Johnson, K. M. (2006). Emerging rural settlement patterns and the geographic redistribution of America’s new immigrants. Rural Sociology, 71(1), 109–131. Lichter, D. T., & Landale, N. S. (1995). Parental work, family structure, and poverty among Latino children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 346–354. Lichter, D. T., Qian, Z., & Crowley, M. (2005). Child poverty among racial minorities and immigrants: Explaining trends and differentials. Social Science Quarterly Special Issue, 86(5), 1037–1059. Martin, P. J., Taylor, E., & Fix, M. (1996). Immigration and the changing face of rural America: Focus on the Midwestern states (JSRI Occasional Paper No. 21). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Julian Samora Research Institute. McConnell, E. D., & LeClere, F. B. (2002). Selection, context, or both?: The English fluency of Mexican immigrants in the American Midwest and Southwest. Population Research and Policy Review, 21, 179–204. Middlemiss, W., & McGuigan, W. (2005). Ethnicity and adolescent mothers’ benefit from participation in home-visitation services. Family Relations, 54, 212–224. Morales, A. T., & Salcido, R. (2001). Social work practice with Mexican Americans. In A. T. Morales & B. W. Sheafor (Eds.), The many faces of social work clients (pp. 267–293). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Murdaugh, C., Hunt, S., Sowell, R., & Santana, I. (2004). Domestic violence in Hispanics in the southeastern United States: A survey and needs analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 19(2), 107–115. Murphy, A. D., Blanchard, C., & Hill, J. A. (Eds.). (2001). Latino workers in the contemporary South. Athens: University of Georgia Press. O’Hare, W. P., & Johnson, K. M. (2004). Child poverty in rural America. Population Reference Bureau, Reports on America, 4(1), 1–20. Oropesa, R. S., & Landale, S. (1997). Immigrant legacies: Ethnicity, generation and children’s familial and economic lives. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 399–416. Passel, J. (2002, May 22). New estimates of the undocumented population of the United States. Migration Information Source. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display. cfm?id=19 Passel, J. (2004, March 1). Mexican immigration to the US: The latest estimates. Migration Information Source. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=208 Rogers, C. (2003). Rural income, poverty and welfare: Rural child poverty (Economic Research Service Brief). Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture. Rogers, C., & Dagata, E. (2000). Child poverty in nonmetro areas in the 1990’s. Rural America, 15(1), 28–36. Ruggles, S., Sobek, M., Alexander, T., Fitch, A., Goeken, R., Hall, P. K., et al. (2004). Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: Minnesota Population Center. Saenz, R. (2004). Latinos and the changing face of America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Seccombe, K. (2002). ÔBeating the odds’ versus Ôchanging the odds’: Poverty, resilience, and family policy. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 384–394. Stull, D. D., Broadway, M. J., & Griffith, D. (Eds.). (1995). Any way you cut it: Meat processing and small-town America. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Taylor, J. E., Martin, P. L., & Fix, M. (1997). Poverty amid prosperity. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Taylor-Brown, S., Garcia, A., & Kingson, E. (2001). Cultural competence versus cultural chauvinism: Implications for social work. Health and Social Work, 26(3), 185–187. Tienda, M., & Neidert, L. (1984). Language, education, and the socioeconomic achievement of Hispanic origin men. Social Science Quarterly, 65, 519–536. Umana-Taylor, A. J., & Bamaca, M. Y. (2004). Conducting focus groups with Latino populations: Lessons from the field. Family Relations, 53, 261–272. Van Hook, J., Brown, S. L., & Kwenda, M. N. (2004). A decomposition of trends in poverty among children of immigrants. Demography, 41, 649–670.

360


Walsh, F. (1998). Strengthening family resilience. New York: The Guilford Press. Wildsmith, E. (2004). Race/ethnic differences in female headship: Exploring the assumptions of assimilation theory. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 89–106. Yuhwa, E. L., Organista, K. C., Manzo, S., Jr., Wong, L., & Phung, J. (2001). Exploring dimensions of culturally sensitive clinical styles with Latinos. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 10(2), 45–66.

Zuniga, M. (1992). Using metaphors in therapy: Dichos and Latino clients. Social Work, 37(1), 55–60. Zuniga, M. (2004). Mexican immigrants: Would you sacrifice your life for a job? In D. Drachman & A. Paulino (Eds.), Immigrants and social work: Thinking beyond the borders of the United States (pp. 119–138). New York: Haworth Social Work Practice Press. Zuniga, V., & Hernandez-Leon, R. (Eds.). (2005). New destinations: Mexican immigration in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.