The latest statistics on the total Latino population (including Mexican-Americans or Chicanos, Mexicans, and others of Latin American origin) living in the United States present a scenario of a population which is young, geographically dispersed throughout the United States, predominantly English-speaking, increasing at a rapid rate, culturally diverse, highly urbanized, and beset with major social problems which include high levels of poverty, unemployment, job segregation, and low levels of educational achievement.
Yet, this scenario provides an incomplete perspective. Perhaps the major statistical differentiation of the 198Os has been that of gender as it relates to socio-economic status. A statistical differentiation of the Latino population according to gender and a comparison of Latino women (Latinas) to other groups of women reveal the important roles which class stratification, ethnic status, and gender continue to play in determining economic and educational achievement.
Latinas are entering the work force in greater numbers than before and supporting their families alone more than ever before. But simultaneously, in contrast to Anglo women, Latinas are growing poorer, working at low-status, low paying jobs, continuing to suffer from low educational attainment, and having few opportunities for a better life.
It should be emphasized that the points which follow must be considered in light of the heterogeneity of the Latina population. Immigrant and undocumented women face additional structural problems to those faced by native-born Mexican American and Latina women. For example, women recently arrived from Mexico or Central America encounter a host of impediments: lack of fluency in English, limited financial resources, lack of work skills, and restricted access to goods and services. Those without proper documents lack access to basic legal services, to social services, to police protection, and face difficulty in finding employment, fearing apprehension, isolation, and other concerns.
Some brief comparisons will begin to demonstrate the magnitude of the problem. In California, between 1970 and 1980, Latina participation in the labor force increased from 39.4 percent to 51.3 percent, approximating the labor force participation of white women. Occupational segregation, low wages, and underemployment characterize the patterns of Latina workers in the California labor force. Latinas have an unemployment rate of 16.3 percent, second only to Blacks, but equal to that of Latino males. Their earning power is lowest: 52 cents for every dollar earned by all males, while Latinos earn 76 cents, Black males earn 72 cents, white women earn 59 cents, and Black women earn 56 cents. Latinas are concentrated in the three lowest job categories: service, operative (factory work) and clerical. These job categories generally reflect low levels of mobility, poor wages, and unsatisfactory working conditions. The overwhelming majority of Latinas entering the labor force remain in such jobs. A 1986 study by M. Romero, 'Twice Protected? Assessing the Impact of Affirmative Action on Mexican-American Women," concludes that in the decade of the 1970s, the concentration of Latinas in the lower rungs of the employment market showed no significant improvement.
Poverty marks most working Latinas, with certain segments of the Latina population facing particularly harsh conditions. For example, in the years from 1975 to 1983, the number of single Latina-headed households increased from 18.7 percent to 23 percent of total households. More problematic is the reality of poverty among those female-headed households. In 1978, 53 percent of Latina-headed households lived below the poverty line. By 1984, 71.0 percent of Latina-headed families lived below the poverty line. This compares with 66.1 percent of Black female-headed households, and 39.7 percent of white female-headed households living in similar conditions. Thus, the proportion of Latina-headed households has increased rapidly, and the rate of poverty among such households has grown at an even greater pace. Presently, Latinas and their children are the poorest group among all single-headed households.
The level of educational attainment compounds the problems for Latinas, who reach an average grade level of only 10.5 years. Latinas possess the highest dropout rate among all other subgroups defined by race/ethnicity and gender. The National Center for Education Statistics indicates that although there are slightly more females than males within the Latino population and in the 1980 census the distributions in grades K-12 are fairly even, in the over-18 category there are fewer females than males enrolled in, or having graduated from, high school. This data is consistent for all Latino population sub-groups. This is precisely the cohort that is currently in the labor market and is raising families. It is a group which is undereducated and thus lacking the skills to cope with a highly technological and industrialized society. Simultaneously, this cohort is unprepared to take advantage of the higher educational opportunities currently open to women of color.
In this regard, the reasons for Latinas leaving high school before graduation are of some significance. A Hispanic Policy Development Study published in 1984 noted that 33 percent of Latina dropouts gave marriage as an important reason for leaving high school and 25 percent cited pregnancy. In contrast, 10 percent of Hispanic males. leave school for marriage, while only 7 percent of all males drop out for marriage. It would appear that marriage and parenthood are not major causes of the male Latino dropout rate, and that Latinas and their families bear most of the responsibility and negative impacts of teenage pregnancy. Chief among these is interruption or termination of education.
During the 1970s and 1980s, 4-year and post-baccalaureate research institutions across the country developed affirmative action programs designed to increase Latino college enrollment. But despite active recruitment to undergraduate and graduate programs, and even to faculty and professional ranks, the status of Latinas in academe remains a poor one and sends a message to aspiring Chicanas/Latinas that institutions of higher education have not encouraged their serious pursuit of academic careers. The findings of a 1982 study by Maria Chacon, Chicanas in Post Secondary Education, underscored that "of all the major population groups, Mexican-American (Chicana) females are the poorest and the most underrepresented in higher education.
Once enrolled, Latinas have a lower four-year college completion rate than other females or their male Chicano counterparts. A 1978 report by the United States Commission on Civil Rights cited a 15 percent college completion rate for Mexican-American (Chicana) females compared to a 32 percent completion rate for Mexican-American (Chicano) males. This is in sharp contrast to that of Anglo females, 85 percent.
The fact that Latinas are severely underrepresented at the undergraduate level compounds the problem for advancement into graduate and professional programs. According to figures from the Office of the President, Admission and Outreach, and Information Systems and Services of the University of California, from 1976 to 1983 the percentage of Chicano students enrolled in graduate programs in the UC System did not increase at all, holding at 3.9 percent. Because the percentage of Chicano females admitted into those graduate programs is much less than 50 percent of those small numbers, it is evident that the actual numbers are very small indeed. While these numbers are slightly augmented with the addition of Latino domestic students into the totals, the percentage increase is still very small, about 1.0 percent in that 7 year period. In 1981 and again in 1986, all of the combined campuses of the University of California graduated 19 Chicano/Latino Ph.D.'s. In 1981, 17 of these graduates were men and only 2 were women. These figures demonstrate that in contrast to the increase of Chicanos/Latinos in the total California population, their educational situation has deteriorated.
In the area of administrative and academic appointments, the same pattern emerges. The University of California actually has a fair record as compared to other major research institutions in the country (see The University of California in the twenty-first Century: Successful Approaches to Faculty Diversity, 1987). But in 1983, of 1,026 high-level administrators, the University employed only seven "Hispanic" females in its Executive Program, 32 "Hispanic" males, eleven Black females, 45 Black males, and 244 white females. The situation has not improved. Eight Chicanas/Latinas were employed in the University's Executive Program in 1988, representing 2.3 percent of the program, a decline from 3.2 percent in 1987.
In summary, the improvement of the socioeconomic status of Latinas represents an enormous, complex challenge. By every indicator, the situation of Latinas has deteriorated in comparison to their male counterparts or in comparison to whites -- male or female. Nonetheless, research on the specific problems and concerns of Latinas remains scant with obviously adverse consequences for the construction of policy to address their problems.