It is clear that the state of research in the areas addressed by this report is, at best, incomplete. That is, there is much we do not know about the population called Latino. This is due to the complexity and changing nature of the population and to the fact that academic study of Latinos is a relatively new field. This is reflected in State and national population data which provides over the past decades few accurate distinctions concerning Latino residents. Research endeavors which focus upon the U.S. Latino population have been established in only the past two decades. And the training of future generations of scholars and scientists who will concentrate in these areas progresses slowly because of the present dearth of faculty members to train them.
Achievement, therefore, of the research and training objectives identified in this report will be dependent upon increased human resources, i.e., scholars and scientists working on Latino topics, which will accelerate the pace of research essential to informing State and federal public policy.
This acceleration will depend also upon increased financial resources. In the University of California, such resources in the past have been derived from a combination of federal, private and University sources. State support, through the University's State-funded research budget and through direct State agency grants, has been very limited.
In this regard, Table 10.1 provides telling evidence. Drawn from the University's 1987-88 Campus Financial Schedules, the table details the amounts and general sources of expenditures for research in those UC units most closely related to the subjects of SCR 43. In these units, less than two million dollars in State and University fluids were expended in 1987-88. Some units supported nearly their entire research agenda on extramural funding alone. While additional University and State funding will have contributed to Latino-related research in disciplinary-based units, and while it is impossible to extract the amount of such expenditures, the support given to the University's units charged to perform research in Latino issues is an indication of the University's meager commitment in this area. In contrast, in 1987-88 the University expended more than three million dollars in the preparation of the supercollider proposal.
The pattern of federal government support for research in these areas is changing. First, federal agencies, with some exceptions, are doing more in-house research. In addition, the federal government and foundations are increasingly likely to put their resources into non-academic think tanks. For example, the Ford Foundation's 2.8 million dollar immigration project was awarded to the Rand Corporation and the Urban Institute. There is an increasing misperception among the agencies that nonacademic think tanks have more clout with legislative bodies. Nonetheless, much of the work awarded to the think tanks is later subcontracted to the universities, or the research is "milked" from university researchers.
Eighty percent of funding for social science research comes from private foundations (and in our two-year sample, 100%) and these have enormous influence over what gets done. There are important UC efforts that are very much at risk because of shifting extramural funding priorities. Issues such as those raised by SCR 43 are often thought of as regional, not national, issues by many foundations, and New York Program Officers are not particularly sensitive to California's interests. Typically, they will provide only start-up funding for new projects. Projects meriting continuation must too often be abandoned by the University because they have been abandoned by the East Coast foundations whose interests and priorities change as often as annually. For example, the Social Science Research Council, a major source of support in the past for Chicano/Latino research, assigned only $12,000 in 1988 for Latin American topics. The Ford Foundation's strongest current emphasis is in agriculture. And at the federal level, Office of Education Title VI funding is down 65% this year.
Therefore, the University of California has to reduce the vulnerability of its own programs to the whims of external funders. The only solution to this problem is to reduce dependence on extramural funding for projects and program the University has determined are essential to meeting its research mission in the state and the time in which it exists.
Based on an analysis through a key-word search of the University's records of extramural funding received in the years 1984-85 and 1987-88, some trends in extramural funding are revealed. (See Table 10.2.) For projects related to the broad range of issues presented in SCR 43, federal support fell by nearly $700,000, or close to 18%, between fiscal years 1985 and 1988. Grants from foundations and charities combined increased by $412,570 over the period, an increase of 42%. The overall increase of 4.63% in funding is virtually canceled by inflation.
Shifts in the types of projects supported by various sources also hold important implications.. In Table 10.3, a $1.1 million reduction in support for basic research is offset by $.9 million in new applied research funding and small increases in support for training and developmental research.
Net declines in foundation and federal support, given meager institutional and State support, for research units focusing on California s Latino population spell a grim future for such units. Two organizations whose work is directly related to SCR 43-- the Field Research Program on Mexican Migration to California in the UCSD Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, and the Spanish Speaking Mental Health Center at Los Angeles --are scheduled to terminate all activities during this fiscal year. It is essential to note that these two programs have been the sources of some of the most critical data available to support applied research activities about California's Latino population. Even in medical schools, traditionally well-funded, important research areas are discontinued because of shifts in funding priorities.
Agency priorities towards the problems of major metropolitan areas, however, hold short-term promise for addressing some of the issues raised in this report, since the majority of California Latinos live in large cities. University researchers should be encouraged to pursue such topics while agency interest is high. Specifically, attention should be given to the IUP of the Social Science Research Council.
Because it is specifically referenced in SCR 43, funding made available in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 should be discussed here. Title II, Section 204 of the legislation appropriates one billion dollars for each of fiscal years 1988-91 for State Legalization Impact-Assistance Grants. The funds are intended to reimburse states for costs of delivering educational, health and social services to newly amnestied immigrants, and for the provision of English and civics courses such immigrants are required to complete as a condition of permanent residency. In California, funds obtained through this provision of IRCA are insufficient to provide for such basic services, and their allocation among K-12 education, social services, and health services agencies is the source of considerable controversy. Their potential use for research, higher education, professional education and public education activities such as those recommended in the report of thifts Task Force is unlikely, and possibly illegal under current interpretations of the law.
It should not be any great surprise that California's particular needs and problems are not always high on the list of federal agencies and national foundations. California's population is unique in a multitude of attributes which define California's social challenges differently than those of other states. There are three actions which can work toward resolving the mismatch between state and national priorities which now have considerable influence on the definition of research performed in California universities.
1. The State should lobby its interests more actively at the federal level in order to influence the allocation of program funding which meets California's particular needs.
2. The University should make every effort to influence the establishment of extramural agency priorities which will support the research agenda defined in this report.
3. The State and the University should support and sustain researchers and research institutions focusing on the issues discussed in this report, regardless of extramural priorities.