LATINO SETTLEMENTS IN CALIFORNIA

Introduction

There are numerous ways by which the State's Latino population can be disaggregated into meaningful units of analysis which facilitate research and public policy actions. Certain issues are highlighted and put into focus contingent on the criteria the researcher or policy maker uses to define the population and which specific problems or concerns drive the research inquiry. This facilitates or enables the deliberation and adoption of policy decisions, the design and targeting of programs, and the identification of public and private agencies that should be involved in their implementation. The different sections of the SCR 43 report, focusing on a variety of issues that affect the State's Latino population, clearly reflect these intents.

This section of the SCR 43 report focuses attention on the Latino population of California from the perspective of the communities they inhabit. This is important for three reasons:

Latinos have clustered and concentrated into certain urban and non-urban spaces, forming ethnically and culturally distinct settlements commonly known as barrios The vast majority of Latinos, and certainly the most needy, not unlike other national ethnic minorities and new immigrant groups, live in such communities.

The physical, social, economic and political conditions prevalent in the settlements are highly representative of and closely linked to the multiple problems that afflict Latinos.

Latino settlements -- whether they be urban neighborhoods, incorporated cities, towns, rural communities, ranchos, or shanty towns - are both the logical targets for State programs and the primary vehicles for the delivery of public services.

No single public or private program is capable of producing more meaningful and lasting results, and of delivering services to a greater number of the most needy than one which focuses on the overarching needs and problems of Latino communities. This section of the SCR 43 report, therefore, identifies, distinguishes and characterizes the major types of Latino settlements found in California, namely, those present in the State's metropolitan areas, in small and medium-sized cities, and in the rural environment. An advantage of this approach is that it affords an excellent opportunity to identify assess and act upon the communities' diverse aptitudes and/or weaknesses to become forceful advocates and efficient managers of their own destinies. Given that communities are, in fact the logical targets and vehicles of development, and recognizing that the successful and effective delivery of services and programs often hinges not only on their appropriate design but also on the communities' capacity to request, receive and administer them, the state of these abilities should be, without question, a major issue of concern. Moreover, considering that most Latino communities in California -- large and small -- are wanting in these faculties, the issues must figure preeminently in the formulation of a research and/or policy agenda which proposes to address matters affecting Latinos.

Aside from discussion of the diversity of Latino communities in California and the array of problems that afflict them, this report draws special attention to the plight of Latino rural settlements. Less than twenty percent of all California Latinos reside in rural communities, but the population is one of the most neglected and needy in the State, historically ignored and bypassed by researchers, policy makers and public service programs. Because rural Latinos comprise only a fraction of the State's Latino population, and because policy is generally driven by available statistical data, their particular problems are often masked, diminished, or dismissed by the extraordinary number, weight and importance of Latino urbanites. As a consequence, programs and services designed to address the latter may very well be inappropriate for the former, or simply not implementable in rural settings. Finally, while urban Latino issues are well represented in the different sections of this report, rural issues are not. Hence, special attention is clearly warranted lest they are, once again, relegated to obscurity.