. 1.! ‘11:“ £1. '11.: 111-31511- 9:?“ $1? ‘I‘1‘1.1"‘1,"1""1" *§,I‘«11I'1,,,I3‘ 111.1 E‘ H" 111,1: III 1""11, ’ 1‘. I’ 1; 1 12% .1.’..-...I...I...I.... .. 1 "1‘1 1 .1 1,1,. 1." '1.‘ f 1‘}; 112' ‘.1‘1 1IL1‘11 ' ,1,” """111‘1191111- “111,1 11,11,11 '1",13,1"‘1111111 1.1111: 111'," “Wu "‘1 1,1,}, 1 1‘1 1,1, H1111; III'IIK‘1 511%" a I —$V_vqnmkuuam 1. n 1:1. ‘ .2134: 'r -...-¢-. 1: r . d3 1‘. '1'111,1,1, 11 1 1 1 ".'""' “ 1 .1111 11111, 113‘1‘11 ""' 1’1111 1,111,,l "‘1 11 1.111,": 1.11311 11151 ’ '1 1111111131) ,1 ":11 1511,1231” “191111., 1,1111? 11 H, 1“"1‘1'1-‘11' .,1J1.-a 1 "a: ‘ "1" 15' 111‘ I‘“ 1“” 18113111 1.1. A , 111' WERE 11 1111' 11,111 11111, 11,1 .1 931,311, "'1*"“~1 Y'1'1."1h‘213" 1.1‘13'11 ,11111 '31" ‘1..‘ '11'1'1111.1, 1151'1'11‘. bl I 11131111 ““3111" :1 111'11' 1:13. 111.341.1111: 1313‘ ._ 1. .- ”,1 3:, .1121: ,,,,.1111 $1 111111111111 1‘1‘ ‘1',"1111‘ .1 , 1, 11 1.1 .111 .1’1' :31 I11 11"" 1,13 $1,111“ 1,;ng 1,}, 1.,...~.............-1..._1~-.-._.......-u..‘ ..-..‘—1 1-.. - V0-3...m-pw... . ... - . u 7’“. w:- ‘fi-o‘ksl. 1111.111 11 J '1"""":1.""" ‘i 1“'""""'" 111:“ ‘1 112.4,! ' """I131 L1, I1.1,1II1,- , '1 11,1. 311111" H111,1.1-,.,111‘<1 1.1:1 .1. ”11111111113, 11 511%, {11311 ‘ I 1 1 ‘1" fl ' ‘ (1111.21, .1 1 11,1» 1.1.1 ',1 1111', 1,.“ 1 1H 1,! . 14,) 1,1. 1‘13 {1:11.11 711111111 1 111“" I1, '1 ,‘,, 11 1'1'|‘,1‘1" ‘ 1. 1 :\ ‘,,,H"1.1 3139"“; . ' I 1 ,1. 111 . .'""'""' I11""1I' ' 1 ':.‘ 1. 11,13,111“ 1'11‘1, “1,112,; . 11‘III,II11. . “111,111,: 1, "1'11 1 = 9.11! 131%“ '1. 1 1‘ 11 ' '11'" I'1V1,1‘. 1“?" 1IIII1h 97.446445; .1. 1,"1 ‘ ‘ ‘1111‘11'1'1 '.‘1 ,f'i-fi 1.11111‘1111“' 1. '1" ‘13., 151.1111‘ ,.},11.;"111,1,1, ,I,,11,,“‘.,:' 12:! 'r'1 .. "‘1'1"""'*' II‘t‘EI‘ 1‘{1;11"1;'"" "11,149, 1:,11111‘1“1 1. ‘1‘" . 212529! . gainful . 3‘ if I, I B RARY "' ‘wigan State ”University This is to certify that the thesis entitled MEXICAN-AMERICANS AND PUBLIC SERVICE INSTITUTIONS IN A MIDWESTERN COMMUNITY: AN ANALYSIS OF MUTUAL IMAGES AND INTERACTIONS presented by Alfredo H. Benavides has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph-D- Higher Education & degree in Administration /./§} Major profes or g7 Date 3-9-78 0-7639 © Copyright by Alfredo H. Benavides 1978 .. .___.a.:.-...-... - W MEXICAN-AMERICANS AND PUBLIC SERVICE INSTITUTIONS IN A MIDWESTERN COMMUNITY: AN ANALYSIS OF MUTUAL IMAGES AND INTERACTIONS BY Alfredo H. Benavides A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1978 ABSTRACT MEXICAN-AMERICANS AND PUBLIC SERVICE INSTITUTIONS IN A MIDWESTERN COMMUNITY: AN ANALYSIS OF MUTUAL IMAGES AND INTERACTIONS BY Alfredo H. Benavides The problem examined by this study is the interaction between a small midwestern Mexican-American community and the educational, public, and welfare institutions which serve it. More precisely, this study examines the relationships these institutions have developed with the community; how decisions affecting the community are arrived at by persons working within these institutions; and, the attitudes expressed by the community and institutional personnel towards each other. The principal methods of investigation used in conducting this study are anthropological in nature. They are: l) participant-observer, 2) key informant, and, 3) survey——open—ended questionnaire. Alfredo H. Benavides Demographic data was gathered by the use of a questionnaire designed by the investigator for use in a Mexican—American community. Such information included data on housing, income level, educational level, and partici— pation in social and/or public welfare programs. The investigator was also able to gain the confi- dence of community members and school officials, which enabled him to participate and observe many interactions between the two. Also, the investigator was able to establish key informants within the community, the social and public welfare agencies, and the schools. These informants were used by the investigator to support survey data, assess attitudes and behaviors within different groups, and to reinforce existing bonds with various community leaders, school and service agency personnel. In addition to these methods, the investigator spent one year as an employee of one of the Mexican— American-"oriented" service agencies. This proximity to the population under study greatly enhanced the opportunity for in-depth and close—up study. The major conclusions arrived at by this study primarily indicate the following: 1) that the relationship between the Mexican- American community and its schools and service agencies is primarily negative; 2) there is a lack of understanding among educators and agency personnel about MexicanwAmericans in general; Alfredo H. Benavides 3) that school administrators and agency personnel and administrators are motivated more by the acquisition of federal monies, than by what services these monies will provide; 4) Mexican—American community leaders are more concerned with the immediate employment impact for their constituencies, than with the long— term goals and outcomes of federally funded educational programs; 5) there is a lack of understanding among Mexican~ American community leaders and members about the nature of public and social welfare institu— tions, their services and operations; and, 6) there is a lack of technical knowledge among Mexican-American community leaders about the operation, goals, and purposes of their own social service agency. These major findings are not based upon empirical data and its analysis. Rather, they are based upon long and extended periods of observation and participation by the investigator. These findings as such, constitute general/patterns and tendencies of behavior and attitudes as manifested by a small midwestern Mexican-American community, and its educational and social service institutions. to Christine and Joseph Tomas ii .3 r‘.‘ .4..‘1. In 11. Tie. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express his gratitude to Professors Walter F. Johnson and Joseph Spielberg for their assistance during the writing of this thesis and during the entire graduate program at Michigan State University. "Mejores amigos-—nunca." Appreciation is also extended to Dr. Dale Alam and Dr. Van Johnson for the help they have given in many areas. Also, the writer would like to thank the late Dr. William Sweetland for his insight and ever—lasting positive nature. A special note of appreciation is intended for my wife, Chris, who has been extremely encouraging and supportive. Although at times it was difficult, she always managed to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Finally, the author would like to thank the many people of Joe's Corner. Their help and cooperation is without doubt immeasurable. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vi LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Problem . . . . . 1 Purpose and Importance of the Study . . . 2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . 12 II. THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY . . . . . . . 15 Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Community History . . . . . . . . . . . l8 Hiring as a Labor Recruiter . . . . . . 20 The Labor Recruitment Process . . . . . 22 Urban and Rural Settlement . . . . . . 25 General Characteristics . . . . . . . . . 30 The Latin American Club . . . . . . . . 30 Political Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Political Behavior . . . . . . . . . . 41 Socio- economic Conditions . . . . . . . . 43 Housing . . . . . . . . . . 43 Income, Employment and Welfare . . . . 51 Closing Statements . . . . . . . . y . . . 58 III. SOCIAL AND PUBLIC WELFARE SERVICES . . . . . 59 Structure of Agencies . . . . . . . . . . 62 Skills Training Center . . . . . . . . 68 Family Planning Project . . . . . . . . 73 Employment Security Commission . . . . 80 El Centro Latino, Inc. . . . . . . . . 86 Agency Impact on the Community . . . . . . 93 Agency Attitudes Towards Mexican—Americans . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Community Attitudes Towards Agencies . . . 96 B1ack——oriented Agencies . . . . . . . . 96 iv Chapter Page El Centro Latino, Inc. . . . . . . . . 99 Closing Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 IV. THE EDUCATION OF MEXICAN-AMERICANS . . . . . 107 The Community Perspective . . . . . . . 107 Parental Attitudes Towards Schools . . 123 Community Heterogeneity . . . . . . . 130 Community Attempts at Educational Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 The Institutional Perspective . . . . . . 145 Attitudes of School District Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . l47 The Educational Decision Making Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Patterns of Communication . . . . . . . 170 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 V. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Socio—economic Conditions . . . . . . . . 176 Social and Public Welfare Agencies . . . . 179 Educational Institutions . . . . . . . . . 183 Community Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . l87 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 v 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES PROPERTY RESIDENT STATUS . . . . . . . . . . HOUSING AND LIVING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . ESTIMATED VALUE OF MEXICAN-AMERICAN HOMES . INCOME AMONG MEXICAN-AMERICANS IN JOE'S CORNER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF MEXICAN-AMERICAN MALE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLD (Urban Zones Only) . . . MEXICAN-AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING PUBLIC SERVICES IN JOE'S CORNER . . . . . . . . . . TYPES OF SERVICES AND WELFARE RECEIVED BY MEXICAN-AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS IN JOE'S CORNER. EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF MEXICAN-AMERICAN MALES. EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF MEXICAN-AMERICAN FEMALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AMONG MEXICAN—AMERICAN ADULT MALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AMONG MEXICAN-AMERICAN ADULT FEMALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AGE-GRADE RETARDATION AMONG MEXICAN-AMERICAN CHILDREN (King Elementary School) . . . . . vi 0 o Page 44 45 46 52 53 54 56 114 115 116 117 158 LIST OF FIGURES Division of Zones in Joe's Corner . . . . Manpower Agency Structure . . . . . . . . Organizational Structure of the Skills Training Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Structure of the Family Planning Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Structure of the Employment Security Commission . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Structure of El Centro Latino, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expanded Organizational Structure of El Centro Latino, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 64 69 74 82 87 90 Irina-aw fifléhfl‘i1r .23. ..!.. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem There is a need in education today to answer some of the crucial questions concerning school and community relations. This is especially true as more schools come under increasing pressure from minority or ethnic communi- ties, to meet the particular educational needs of those communities. are: Some of the questions in need of answering What is the precise nature of the community- school relationship? What role do school administrators play in this relationship? What non—ethnic or situational factors are considered by school administrators in making decisions affecting school policy in relation to these communities? To what extent does parental involvement or community leadership affect school policy? What socio-economic conditions do certain communities face, which may affect the school- community relationship? This study focuses on the educational problems and attitudes of a small Mexican—American midwestern community, and, on how its school system has attempted to meet its educational needs. As a part of the study, the investigator also collected socio—economic data on the community, and investigated the nature of the relationship between the community and the social and public welfare agencies which serve it. Therefore, a more precise definition of the problem would be the description of the relationship between a small Mexican—American community and the institu— tions serving it. The institutions can be defined as the social and public welfare agencies and the educational system within the community. Purpose and Importance of the Study The basic purpose for this study is to examine through the use of description, the nature of the relation— ship between a community and its institutions. It is the investigator's thesis that the quality of this relationship directly affects the quality of services provided to the community by its local institutions. More specifically it is the purpose of this study to demonstrate that this type of research is essential for educators in order to identify and understand the nature of the particular educational needs and problems of a given community. Given this understanding, educators can begin to make constructive changes which will ultimately benefit the community, as well as the educational system which serves it. Methodology The approach to this study of Mexican-Americans is both descriptive and anthropological in nature. Lindquist (1970), states: The role of the anthropologist in studying education is partially the application of ethno- graphic fieldwork methods, and cross-cultural reference points to some aspect of education. Basic fieldwork methods, in summary, include (1) the need for participation and observation; (2) maintenance of as value—free and "objective" an attitude as possible toward the group being studied; (3) constant attempts to place the data being collected into a holistic conception of the culture and society of the group or groups involved; (4) gaining an understanding, even in the absence of agreement, of the goals of the superordinate group, if there is one; (5) grasp- ing the variant meanings of symbols which the groups involved are using, both within each group and in communication between groups. (Lindquist, 1970, pp. xiii—xiv.) Three principal methods of investigation were employed. These were: 1. participant—observer, 2. key informant, and 3. survey—-open—ended questionnaire. As participant—observer, the investigator actually participated in and observed the events described in the ’study, since only through participation in and observance of the lives and daily occurrences of community members, could one begin to understand the composition of the community, as well as its basic needs and problems. In order to maintain proper perspective and objectivity in ... U1. , _ . ,. r l» . . .w l .4“. MAIL-21., v. conducting the research, the investigator declined several attempts by community members and leaders, as well as school administrators, to act as spokesman for any one group. At the same time however, he was allowed to parti- cipate in and observe all meetings and communicative inter- actions between the community and school system, as well as the local social and public welfare agencies. The key informant method of investigation was also used in conducting this study. Key informants were defined as those community leaders or members, school personnel, or social and public welfare agency personnel, who in the course of daily affairs, possessed knowledge of the com— munity or its local institutions. Enlistment of key informants was a slow process. This process was accomplished in several ways. Initially, the investigator was a member of a research team whose task was to gather information about the structure and operation of social and public welfare agencies in the community. Through the Mexican—American personnel in some of these agencies, the investigator began to discover who community leaders were, where the community had its formal social organization (social club), and other general information about the community. During these initial phases of the study (June 1974- September 1974), the investigator spent an average of two days per week in the community. This time was devoted to studying various agencies and familiarizing oneself with the community and its population. Once he became known, the investigator was asked to become a member of the Latin American Club, the community's social club. This oppor— tunity was quickly accepted because the investigator felt that through such membership, he could acquire more specific knowledge of the Mexican-American community. In March of 1975, the investigator was offered a research position within a social service agency within the community, especially funded to work within the Mexican— American community. The name of the agency was El Centro Latino, Incorporated. A principal purpose for establishing the research position was to collect socio-economic data within the MexicanuAmerican community. This was a fortui— tous circumstance since data of this type had also been projected as a necessary part of this study. The position was accepted with the following conditions: 1. reasonable autonomy in conducting the research, 2. freedom to maintain working hours and schedules as deemed appropriate, and, 3. the right to retain residency in Lansing, Michigan, rather than having to move into the community being studied. The position called for providing El Centro Latino with two types of information: 1. a complete list of all existing Mexican- American households, as identified by the survey, and, 2. an analysis of the socio-economic problems within the Mexican-American community. Only the first of these two conditions was met by the investigator because the agency was closed in June of 1976. It is hoped that this study will partially, at least, provide some of the data of significance with regard to the second purpose. Through the auspices of El Centro Latino, the investigator eventually came to know all community leaders, many school administrators and teachers, and many other agency directors and personnel. Through this medium it was also possible to meet many others in the community who sought the agency's services. These services were mainly referral in nature——meaning that people came to El Centro Latino seeking a specific service, and were referred to the agency offering that particular service. Fieldnotes were a great asset for the research endeavor. Notes of all interviews, meetings, and signif- icant observations and encounters were kept from the very beginning of the study. When note—taking was not possible, it was necessary to rely on memory, with notes being recorded as soon as feasible. With time and successive interaction, it was possible to achieve acceptance as a "semi-resident" of the community. This acceptance also aided in the establishment of key informants. All information provided by informants was checked with other informants when possible. There was no evidence of having been given intentionally misleading information during the period of study. The confidentiality of all informants was protected at all times. All names appearing in the study, including the name of the community, have been changed to maintain confidentiality. The people and events described however, represent real people. The third method of investigation employed is that of the open-ended questionnaire. This questionnaire was administered to the Mexican—American heads of households who were included in this study. Prior to the administra- tion of the questionnaire, a list of all possible Mexican— American residents of the community was compiled. This information was obtained through telephone directories (using the investigator's knowledge of Spanish surnames), voter registration files, social club membership lists, city directories, service agency files, community leaders' knowledge of the community, and constant revision by the interviewers and the investigator, in order to avoid duplication of names and addresses. Eight bilingual (Spanish—English), interviewers were used to conduct the survey. The investigator was able to select only two of the eight interviewers, the remaining six already being in the employ of El Centro Latino. The eight interviewers averaged 21 years of age. All interviewers were paid by Neighborhood Youth Corps funds provided to El Centro Latino. The interviewers worked an average of twenty hours per week. They were given a minimum of sixteen hours of instruction by the investigator, in interviewing techniques. The interviewers were under the direct supervision of the investigator or the Executive Director of El Centro Latino at all times. The survey questionnaire was especially devised for the Spanish—speaking population. It was aimed at obtaining specific demographic data and other relevant characteristics about the MexiCan—American community. Specific information was obtained from the following areas: 1. housing, 2. income and employment status, 3. formal education and skill training, 4. place of prior residence and length of present residency, 5. need and use of social and public welfare agencies, and, 6. attitudes toward education, community schools, and public welfare agencies which they had contact with, if any. Specific questions such as "place of birth" or any question pertaining to the citizenship status of individ- uals, were purposely omitted. This was done in order that community members who might have been illegal residents, would cooperate willingly. The collection of data began in Figure 1 Division of Zones in Joe's Corner JOE ' S LAKE JOE'S CORNER ZONE II LAKE MI CHIGAN 10 April of 1975, and ended in September of 1975, requiring a total of five and one-half months. The community was divided into six zones, two rural and four metropolitan. Interviewers were assigned in pairs to each zone. The pairs consisted of one male and one female interviewer, in order to prevent any problems aris— ing from a male interviewer entering a female resident's home, or vice-versa. The administration of the survey was not without problems. A few weeks after the initial collection of data began, a Mexican—American woman called the investigator at El Centro Latino, and claimed to have been threatened by representatives of the Bureau of Immigration and Natural- ization. According to the woman, she had granted an interview to one of the survey interviewers about a week before. She stated that she suspected the interviewer of turning her in to the authorities. The woman stated that three of her children were not citizens of the United States. The three children were actually an orphaned nephew and two sisters, who had come from Mexico to live with her several years before. According to the woman, they were legal aliens because they reported their alien status through the United States Post Office each year. She could not understand why the children were being threatened with deportation when they had always reported their alien status to the government. 11 Rumors of this incident and another similar one, began to spread within the Mexican—American community. Interviewers began reporting some difficulty in interview— ing some of the heads of household. At this point, the investigator personally reassured the woman who had had the trouble and appeared on a local Spanish radio talk show to explain the survey, its purpose and value, and to deny any connection with the Bureau of Immigration and Naturaliza— tion. Shortly thereafter, interviewers reported no prob_ lems in interviewing heads of households. It was never established how the Bureau of Immigra— tion and Naturalization had received the woman's name. However, rumors began in the community that the "migra" (a slang expression used by Mexican—Americans in direct reference to immigration officials), had a paid informant operating within the Mexican-American community. Also, since the woman in question had been heavily dependent upon public assistance (a fact substantiated by the survey), another rumor spread in the community that the county Department of Social Services had allowed immigration authorities access to client's files. None of these or other rumors were ever substantiated and they finally ceased to circulate publicly. 12 Limitations of the Study There were several factors which limited the scope and intensity of the study. One limiting factor was that a similar survey of non—Mexican—Americans was not undertaken simultaneously within the same community. This tends to limit the study in generalizability and relativity. The findings cannot be compared to non-Mexican—American groups in terms of problems and attitudes. This limitation how— ever, may be better explained and perhaps justified, by other factors which defined the scope of the study. These factors were time, a lack of money, and also, a lack of qualified personnel. Time was a limiting factor in several ways. First, it was only possible to spend three days per week in the community. It would have been better to be able to move into the community and live day by day among its residents. This might have provided more insight and depth into the community. Second, more time was needed to conduct the survey itself. The interviewers were limited to an average of twenty hours per week. In addition to the limited hours, interviewers were limited initially to working only Monday through Friday, during the daily operating business hours of El Centro Latino. This was later adjusted by the investigator, in order to allow the interviewers to work during the weekends and also evening hours. The 13 investigator felt this would enhance the chances of finding more residents and working couples at home. Another manner in which more time would have been beneficial to the study was in the actual conduct of the interviews, and the number of people interviewed. More time would have allowed the interviewers to get more in—depth information on the educational histories of community people, and also interview more people. In total, 364 interviews were conducted, with approximately 50 known households left uninterviewed. However, this sample size would appear to be a more than fair representation of Mexican-Americans in the community. The lack of money and qualified personnel were also limiting factors in the conduct of this study. The lack of money made hiring more interviewers impossible. Some of the interviewers were quite inexperienced in many ways and could not fully understand the reasons behind the survey. No number of explanations was ever satisfactory in removing their doubts. It is possible that some of the interviewers were not sufficiently sophisticated to collect such in—depth data. Several interviewers, however, proved extremely adept at deriving information. It was not unusual for these interviewers to spend over an hour with some heads of households, and fill the backs of the questionnaire forms 14 with short family case histories and other relevant in— depth attitudinal data. The investigator recognized this pattern early in the survey phase of the study and assigned these interviewers to critical areas in the community, as identified by several community leaders and agency personnel. Even with these limitations, it is the investi— gator's opinion that the information contained in this study is representative of the problems and attitudes among the Mexican-Americans of this community and perhaps others like it. This type of research will hopefully show the need for more in—depth study within similar communities, and also be of practical value to community people, edu- cators, social and public welfare agency personnel, and other interested people. Whatever the limitations and weaknesses of this study may eventually prove to be, one should not deny its use in terms of practical application and also in serving as a model for further research of this nature. CHAPTER II THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY Size The actual size of the Mexican-American community in Joe's Corner* has been disputed in recent years. Several Mexican-American community leaders have expressed opinions that U.S. Census Bureau figures for 1970 were misleading and incorrect. The main concern among community leaders is that many social service and educational agencies base their assistance to communities, on population studies. The community leaders felt that a large undercount in Joe's Corner's Mexican—American population would mean less federal, state, and local educational and social services. The sentiments of these community leaders are not totally without justification. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1974), reported a significant undercount of persons of Spanish surnames. In its findings, the Commis- sion reports: Current and accurate demographic, social, and economic statistics on persons of Spanish speak- ing background are needed by Federal agencies, State and local governments, private organizations, *Psuedonym. 15 16 and individuals for a variety of purposes includ— ing the protection of voting rights, the adminis- tration of federal and other public social programs, and the assurance of equal employment opportunity. (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, April, 1974, p. 102.) The Commission findings further state that "the Bureau did not pay sufficient attention to method— ology . . ." and furthermore: b. The fifth measure, Spanish origin self— determination, is the preferred method but was asked only of 5 percent of the United States population. (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, April, 1974, pp. 102-103.) An accurate count of Mexican—Americans or persons of Spanish origin, was also needed by El Centro Latino, the agency aimed at the needs of the Mexican—American community in Joe's Corner. Since the investigator was working for this agency, it was determined that he should try to estab— lish the actual number of Mexican-Americans in the com— munity. This resulted in the use of the survey questionnaire. The total population for the county in which Joe's Corner is located is reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census to be 157,426. The population of metropolitan Joe's Corner is 61,935. (U.S. Bureau of the Census Final Report, 1972, p. 1.) In its ethnic breakdown of the population, the Census Bureau shows two categories for Mexican—Americans. These are "Spanish surname" and "Spanish Mother Tongue." 17 An explanation is not given for the use of these two categories. The total Mexican—American county population of Joe's Corner as reported by the Census Bureau is as follows: a. Spanish Surname 2,221 b. Spanish Mother Tongue 1,549 The investigator's survey was less accurate than that of the Census Bureau. Using lists of Spanish surnames assembled from various sources (telephone and city direc— tories, voter registration and agency files, social clubs, churches, and older residents' knowledge), the investigator assembled a list of 620 potential households of persons of Spanish or Mexican—American descent. The following is a breakdown of the 620 contacts made during the survey: a. # completed interviews 364 b. # refusing interview 16 c. # located but unavailable for interview 27 d. # moved, but known to be in county 7 e. # unable to locate household 19 f. # moved with no forwarding address 84 g. # incomplete address 11 h. # moved out of state or county 10 i. # no such address 21 j. # deceased 4 k. # no such person living there 17 l. # non-Spanish surname 40 Total Contacts 620 The total number of residents identified by the 364 interviews was 1537. In addition to the 364 interviews, a minimum of 50 known Mexican-American households were not interviewed (b, c, d). Also, there were 114 possible 18 households still within the city or county (e, f, g). Using 4.2 as the average number of persons per household, it is conceivable that the minimum number of Mexican—Americans in the county is as high as 2,226. This does not compare to the figure of 3,770 found by the U.S. Bureau of Census. As the evidence shows, the true Mexican-American population of Joe's Corner is very difficult to determine. There are many factors which hamper proper identification, the largest being mobility. There were 169 addresses which were inaccessible to the investigator due to the factor of mobility (d, e, f, g, h, i, k). This problem is com- pounded by some residents who list multiple addresses. It would appear that community leaders' concerns over improper identification of the Mexican-American popu— lation by the Census Bureau are not justified. Whereas the Commission Report of 1974 may show the Census Bureau to have undercounted populations in various segments of the country, this does not appear to be the case in Joe's Corner. Community History It is important to look historically at the Mexican—American population of Joe's Corner because through history one can begin to understand the foundation upon which the present situation rests. History can provide an idea of migration patterns, urban and rural settlement, and 19 the general characteristics of the Mexican—Americans who first came to Joe's Corner. History can also provide insight into the existing character of the Mexican—American community. According to voter registration files there were "voting-age" Spanish surnamed individuals in Joe's Corner as early as the early 1900's. However, the first substan— tive movement of Mexican—Americans into Joe's Corner came just prior to and during World War II. Contrary to the belief held by many residents of Joe's Corner, that these early settlers were agricultural fieldworkers, these first Mexican-Americans were skilled and semi—skilled industrial workers. They came from a variety of places, including Monterey and Torrean, Mexico, Texas, and New Mexico. These "first" Mexican—Americans were employed in factories and foundries in or within the vicinity of Joe's Corner. According to Jesus Garcia, a retired Joe's Corner factory worker and resident for over 45 years, many "mexicanos" were hired prior to and during World War II. According to Garcia, many of these skilled workers were brought from Mexico. According to Garcia and other older community residents, language was many times a factor in acquiring factory jobs. By the time World War II had broken out, there were apparently several Mexican—Americans working in 20 factories and foundries in Joe's Corner, who were bilingual (Spanish—English). Garcia pointed out that if a "mexicano" was highly skilled and bilingual, it was not difficult to become a foreman. By doing this, the companies could then recruit Mexican or Mexican—American labor, and assign these people to bilingual foremen. In this manner, the company was able to meet its labor demands without regard to language barriers. According to Garcia, many workers were hired in this manner. One of the companies involved in the recruitment of Mexicans was the Campbell, Wyant and Cannon (CWC), Foundry. At that particular time, C.W.C. was involved in ironworks casting and defense contracting. The following are excerpts from a two hour visit with Mr. Lupe Ortega at his home in Lansing, Michigan. It should be mentioned that Mr. Ortega is a native of Laredo, Texas, although he has lived in Michigan since the age of 12—-approximately since 1921. Mr. Ortega is retired from the Motor Wheel Forge Plant of Lansing, where he worked for 16 years. When asked who had brought them to Joe's Corner, several community leaders and members mentioned Mr. Ortega's name. Hiring as a Labor Recruiter Mr. Ortega worked in the C.W.C. Plant in Joe's Corner during the late thirties and early forties. In 1941 (he could not remember the exact date), he and Juan Beltran 21 (another employee), were summoned to one of the plant owner's office. They were asked if they were qualified and interested in taking a job as labor recruiters for the factory. (The investigator assumed for Mexican—Americans.) Beltran declined, explaining he had no experience. Mr. Ortega was experienced, having been (prior to moving to Joe's Corner), a labor recruiter for factories and sugar beet fields in central Michigan. Furthermore, he wanted the job. When asked what he wanted in terms of salary, he asked for the top pay within his shop at the factory, plus his expenses. The company executive thought it over, and a few days later, agreed. Mr. Ortega was then sent to the Southwest to recruit labor for the factory. Ortega admitted, however, that he also did some recruiting among seasonal agricultural workers in central Michigan. Ortega worked as a recruiter for approximately one and one-half years. When the demand for labor subsided, he was reassigned to his job "in the shop." Ortega refused this reassignment. According to him, "I had gotten used to being out, moving around, and talking to people. I didn't want to work in a hot, noisy, and dirty factory shop any more." The company then offered him a position in the personnel office. He claims that he was not sure if he 22 wanted it. The company then gave him a leave of absence to think it over. At the end of his leave, he declined the company's offer, and moved his family to Lansing. In Lansing, he obtained a job with Mortor Wheel, a plant affiliated with the C.W.C. plant in Joe's Corner. The Labor Recruitment Process According to Ortega, the demand for labor in Michigan factories was great, and many companies recruited personnel from other factories to travel across the country. These persons were to operate through the structure of the State Employment Agencies. Their first contact was with State Employment offices in the capitol cities. From here they were sent to areas chosen by the State Employment Agency hierarchy. Ostensibly, the decision as to where a recruiter was sent was based on the availability of surplus labor in given areas and openings for labor recruiters. Labor recruiters were prohibited from recruiting directly, and instead had to set up desks at State Employ— ment Agencies. Over these desks were signs indicating the areas they were recruiting labor for. Persons looking for work were admitted to offices where they could look over the areas, then choose one. In turn, they were brought to the desk of the area they had chosen. The recruiter was not allowed to actively solicit interviewees. Once at the desk, the prospective laborer would be given all of the 23 relevant information (pay, type of work, benefits, etc.). If he decided on that location or job, he was given money to get a physical examination, and a ticket for himself and his family, or traveling expenses. According to Ortega, only those without tubercu- losis or ruptures (hernias), were accepted. Ortega would then inform the C.W.C. personnel office as to who was arriving and when. The personnel office then received the recruited laborers, who were installed in company housing. (Company housing will be described in a later section.) Ortega was initially sent to Albuquerque, New Mexico, in the company of a C.W.C. personnel officer by the name of Smith. On the first day in Albuquerque, Smith decided to take a few days off in order to visit his son in Los Angeles. On the next day, Ortega received a Visit from a high-up C.W.C. executive, who apparently had come down to check up on them. When Ortega revealed to him that Smith had left for a few days with the company money they had been given, the executive asked him if he thought he could handle the recruiting by himself. Ortega told him that he had already made a recon— naissance of the Spanish—speaking "barrio" in Albuquerque and had ascertained the names of interested persons. The company executive according to Ortega, made him out a check for $1,000 for his expenses, and told him to tell 24 Smith that he was to return to Joe's Corner immediately. Smith did return and was apparently fired. From Albuquerque, Ortega was assigned a recruiting desk in Santa Fe. He didn't like it there because it was hard to recruit "locals" to work in Michigan factories. In his opinion, "those people were a little backward or rural." He was only able to recruit 7 or 8 in several days. He asked for permission to go to Texas. On his way, he stopped in Big Springs, where he got his brother to accompany him to Austin (in his brother's car). In Austin he checked in with the State Employment office and he claims that they wanted to assign him to Georgetown. He felt that there weren't enough Mexicans in Georgetown, so he asked instead for a desk in San Antonio. He claims the official was reluctant to allow him to recruit in San Antonio. In any event, he was told there would be no openings in San Antonio for at least a month. The employ- ment official told him that he didn't think C.W.C. would like it if he had to wait that long. Ortega told the official to call the C.W.C. plant in Joe's Corner. A call was put through (top priority), and the employment official was told by Mr. Campbell, one of the owners, ". . . anything Lupe wants to do is O.K. by us." A month later he had his desk at the San Antonio "1 n 1. filth-ha! \I.‘ -l .1 1. 25 employment office. During the period he was in San Antonio, he was recruiting between 10 and 20 workers per day and, according to him, developing a good reputation with his employers back in Michigan. Another aspect of the recruitment process which Ortega disliked, was the restriction placed on recruiters as to recruiting only in the employment offices. He took it upon himself to move around and recruit directly in the community. Sometimes he traveled beyond the confines of San Antonio--as far south as Cotulla, Texas. There he would recruit people in the "barrios," but arrange for them to appear at the employment office where they would ask for a slot at his desk. Urban and Rural Settlement When World War 11 came to an end, many American men returned to Joe's Corner to find their jobs in the fac— tories already occupied. According to older Mexican— American residents of Joe's Corner, this influx of returning service men created a surplus labor market. As a consequence, many Mexican—Americans lost their jobs and either returned to Mexico or the Southwest, or began life anew as agricultural fieldworkers. However, a significant number of Mexican—Americans remained in these "good—paying jobs." 26 Although Joe's Corner is predominantly an indus— trial community, it is surrounded by large counties which depend almost exclusively upon agriculture for a means of support. At the same time that Mexican—Americans were being hired to work in Joe's Corner's factories, unskilled agricultural laborers were beginning to move into the adjacent counties on a seasonal basis. These workers came mainly from northern Mexico and southern Texas. They came as migrant workers following the seasonal crops. In this particular area they came to work mainly the asparagus, pickle, apple, and cherry crops. As pointed out by the Ortega interview, some of these migrant families were also able to secure jobs in factories and foundries. Thus, aside from the earlier Mexican—Americans who were recruited strictly for the industries, there also began a gradual settling out process among migrant workers in the area. This settling out process was hastened during the 1950's, as farmers began using mechanical devices instead of field workers. By 1968, several federal and state agencies such as United Migrants for Opportunity, Incor- porated (UMOI), began to make concerted efforts to "settle out" migrant families. According to present and former U.M.O.I. officials, these settling out efforts were con— ducted in order to provide more stability within the 27 migrants' lives, and also to decrease their numbers. This influx of Mexican—Americans into Joe's Corner created a need for more jobs, and/or social service agencies to care for jobless families. It also created a division within the Mexican—American community. The divisions created by this rapid influx were ultimately felt on the social, economic, and political fronts of the established Mexican—American families. What in essence developed, were two distinct populations of Mexican-Americans——an "older" and a "younger" population. The "older" and "younger" Mexican—American popu— lations differed in various significant ways. First, the "older" group was for the most part skilled or semi- skilled, and held factory jobs. The "younger" group for the most part was unskilled. The factory Mexican—American also considered himself "above" the migrant, not only economically, but socially as well. It can readily be drawn that a definite class distinction developed between the two groups. This class distinction is apparent in several observable ways. First, the "older" Mexican—American considered himself middle class, having attained some measure of economic success through stable factory employ— ment. Also, the "older" population was fast becoming assimilated and acculturated to the American life style. 28 This is evidenced today by many second and third generation families who in the opinion of some "older" residents, are totally ignorant of the Spanish language and Mexican culture and traditions. In speaking with some of the "older" generation, they at times make reference to "esa gente corriente"-—"those common people." They also remark about how vulgar and crude "those people" are because they cannot even speak correct Spanish. In terms of settlement, the two groups also differ significantly. The factory—employed "older" Mexican- Americans first settled in the northeastern section of Joe's Corner. To the first Mexican-Americans who settled there in the early and mid-1940's, this neighborhood was known as "1a colonia," or the "colony." By its very name——"la colonia"-—a name which is still used in Mexico to refer to neighborhoods, one can develop some idea of the type of people who settled there. "La colonia" is better described by Mr. Ortega, the labor recruiter: A consortium involving the City of Joe's Corner and the C.W.C. and Lakey companies con— structed a pre—fab housing project which came to be known as the Ryerson Heights subdivision. According to Ortega, the city—approved housing subdivision had in excess of 300 houses. Through his efforts, half of these came to be occupied“ - by families he recruited in Texas. The sub— division had been assigned to Ortega and another non—Spanish recruiter from Lakey Company. They decided to begin at opposite ends of the sub— division, and fill it up as best they could. 29 Ortega did not remember if the housing was free or rented to workers. According to Ortega, it was new housing and very adequate-—with city services such as lights, water, and sewage. By contrast, the settled—out migrant population began settling the southeastern section of Joe's Corner in the early 1950's. According to James King, an educator for over 18 years in this particular area of Joe's Corner, "property values never increase, and families often find it difficult to sell their properties and move to a better part of town." King also mentioned that this part of Joe's Corner is also settled by "lower-class whites" from the South. The Mexican-American population of this area refer to it as "e1 barrio," a term used extensively in Texas and other areas where many Mexican—Americans are found. The term is used to describe a neighborhood or "ghetto." The visual differences between "la colonia" and "e1 barrio" are striking. "La colonia" has both old and modern homes, and shows many signs of recent renovation and development, such as businesses, apartment complexes, and parks. Also, all of the streets in "1a colonia" are paved. In sharp contrast to "la colonia, "e1 barrio" has a rather shabby appearance. Most of the homes found here are old and appear flimsy and in need of repair. There are no signs of development in the area, and many of the streets are unpaved. 30 The reasons for the differences in the two popula- tions are apparently socio—economic. The "older" popula— tion has attained a more stable economic base and some measure of economic success. It could be argued by some that age differences and degree of political involvement may be contributing factors. The investigator found no evidence of this. Still, the significance of these two populations is in their heterogeneity as a community. General Characteristics However distinct these two groups are economically, there is a complex set of values and attitudes that is held in common by both. These values and attitudes can best be illustrated through a description of their social and political behaviors, and the alliances built within these two constructs. One of the best means of observing such behavior is the Latin American Club. The Latin American Club The Latin American Club is a private social organ— ization founded in 1958 by several leading members of the "older" group of Mexican—Americans. Historically, the club has enjoyed periods of prosperity, when the membership exceeded 300 people. It has also experienced "lean years" when the membership was down to only a couple of board members. Nevertheless, the Latin American Club has taken 31 the role of private social club, and "sounding board" for politically-inclined members. It would be accurate to say that every community leader of the "older" group of Mexican-Americans is a member of the club. On the other hand, community leaders of the "younger" group are not all members. At the social level, both groups participate actively in the club, except for the leaders of the "younger" group. On the political level, the leadership of both groups disagree. However, their constituencies, who are almost all club members, are not always constant in terms of whose side they are on. Consequently, the appear— ance is given that there is always a political feud in progress. Socially, the membership of the club gathers almost every week at the club for Mexican dances. The Latin American Club also sponsors dinners, children's activities, and other social fund—raising events. It is also the proper forum for the community to celebrate the traditional Mexican holidays such as September 16, and May 5. The Latin American Club is also involved in representing the Mexican—American community when city festivals are celebrated. The investigator (as a non-voting club member), was present at many of these functions and was able to observe and interact with many club members. The attitudes and 32 values expressed to the investigator during these periods were extremely important in understanding the residents and leadership of the community. As previously noted, the Mexican-American popula- tion of Joe's Corner is divided by economic class. However, social attitudes and behavior were very consistent in the people observed at the Latin American Club. Among some of the most often mentioned opinions were: 1) discrimination against Mexican-Americans did not exist in Joe's Corner, 2) educators were "foolish" for attempting to study the community because there was no real concern for the community on their part, 3) welfare was wrong, because ultimately they paid for it, 4) a strong desire for their children to succeed in school and in life, 5) the "Anglo" was not all that bad-—it was the Mexicans' fault for being where they are, and, 6) a deep pride in being Mexican or Mexican— American, but not Chicano. These attitudes were expressed mainly by the "older" male population within the club. However, the "younger" male population expressed many of the same beliefs. The only discernible difference between the two groups was that the "younger" group seemed more tolerant and accepting of values which were different than their own. The only expressed belief which several "younger" members disagreed with, was the belief that there was no 33 discrimination in Joe's Corner. To them discrimination was very much a reality in their everyday lives, but they did not feel that it was a problem they could correct on a mass level. One member summed it up by stating that, "each person has to deal with it in their own way." To the reference of being Mexican versus Chicano, the "younger" members did not feel depreciated by the word as did "older" members. Political Leaders Politically there are distinct differences between the Mexican—American leadership. It is the investigator's opinion that the outcome of any political movement by Mexican-Americans in Joe's Corner would in all essence be the same. However, different leaders approach the solution to problems in different manners. Before examining the political differences among Mexican—American leaders in Joe's Corner, it should be noted that those most actively involved in Mexican—American politics in Joe's Corner are women. It is hoped that the main reason for this will become apparent in the description of Mexican—American politics. In Joe's Corner there are several community leaders who represent distinct segments of the community, based largely on whether these segments are "older" or "younger" populations. Without exception, these leaders have risen 34 to the forefront of community politics through several social service agencies in which they have held jobs. To better understand these leaders and the constituencies which they represent, it is necessary to provide a back— ground profile on three such leaders. Juanita Rodriguez Juanita Rodriguez is a 59 year—old member of the "older" Mexican—American population of Joe's Corner. She has been involved in community affairs for over 25 years. She has served the Mexican—American community in several capacities, among which are: 1) legal assistant at court hearings involving Mexican-American community members, 2) school board member for several years, 3) city council member for 8 years, 4) former social service agency employee working for agricultural fieldworkers (UMOI), 5) board member (and President) to several community agency boards of directors, and, 6) employee of Michigan Department of Civil Rights——specialist in Mexican—American affairs. Through her involvement in community agencies and local-level politics, Rodriguez has gained not only state visibility, but some national recognition as well. Ms. Rodriguez has been awarded numerous citations and awards for community service—-both by the MexicannAmerican and Anglo communities. She has been recognized by other 35 Mexican—American community leaders and members, as "having the power" in Joe's Corner. The non-Mexican—American community also recognizes her as the spokesperson for the Mexican—American community. Rodriguez's long tenure in the community and her staff position in the Michigan Department of Civil Rights only add clout to her political activities. Juanita is a native of San Antonio, Texas, and was educated in Mexico. Over the years she has also completed two years of study at a local community college. The twenty-five years which she has spent in Joe's Corner have helped solidify her political constituency better than any other single community leader. Rodriguez is admired and respected by many Mexican-Americans in the community, yet despised by others. Those who do not regard her very highly are usually members of the "younger" population. She is sometimes radical in her approach to problems, yet sophisticated enough to be extremely diplomatic in seeking her way. A good example of her diplomacy was when school officials were contemplating the implementation of a bilingual curriculum at a nearby school. Rodriguez pri— vately cursed each administrator's knowledge and incompe- tence, then flattered them at successive meetings, until the administrators acted as if the original idea for a bilingual program had been theirs alone. 36 One of Rodriguez's main assets in her political behavior is that she is very astute and can play both sides of an issue extremely well. Due to some of this "fence— straddling," she is consistently on the "winning" side. Other community leaders and members interpret her "strad— dling" as non—cooperation, and accuse her of using devious means to achieve her goals. In her many conversations with the investigator, Rodriguez often talked of "retiring," but not before she felt there was someone who could take her place. She con— sistently spoke of developing younger leadership so that she could "rest." This was interpreted by others as a leadership which she could manipulate and control. Juanita Rodriguez's ultimate goal of training her successor never materialized. Rodriguez expired of a heart attack in January of 1977. It is the investigator's opinion that the contributions of this woman, however controversial, will be sorely missed by all residents in Joe's Corner. Jane Garcia In direct opposition to Rodriguez is Jane Garcia. Garcia is a member of the "younger" population, having only lived in Joe's Corner for ten years. Her leadership has its support base in “el barrio," and is composed almost exclusively of social service or "welfare clients." These 37 people see Garcia not as an employee of an agency, but rather as a "neighbor who cares." In many conversations with Garcia's supporters, Garcia was seen as a person able to provide services, rather than an employee of an agency providing services. Garcia does not view herself in this manner. In conversations with the investigator, Garcia seemed to always put the community's interests above her own. This was one of her criticisms of Rodriguez. Garcia felt that Rodriguez was selfish and only wanted the recognition of being a community spokesperson. To the investigator's knowledge, Garcia never received any community awards or overall recognition. This does not however mean that Garcia was not active or deserving of community recognition. The investi— gator has personal knowledge that the initial funding for El Centro Latino came about largely due to her efforts. These efforts were not only unrecognized, but credit for E1 Centro's establishment was taken by Juanita Rodriguez. The investigator never fully understood the negative relationship between these two leaders, but felt that surely the issue over El Centro Latino was at the core. Jane Garcia is a native of Mission, Texas, where she finished her high school studies. Her subsequent arrival in Joe's Corner was via the migrant stream. 38 According to survey information, Garcia has been employed as a nutrition aide for six years. Her employer is a county agency. Garcia's efforts in the community are helped some— what by her work at a local radio station. Garcia has a one hour show which she devotes to Mexican music and news items in Spanish for the community. The investigator used this medium to explain the survey questionnaire and to deny allegations of collusion with immigration officials. Despite Garcia's efforts, her base of support is limited to her employer, one or two service agency per— sonnel, and her direct service recipients. She is unknown to the educational administrators and establish- ment, and to the investigator's knowledge, has never been active in community educational reform. Ms. Garcia's efforts are also diminished by her not being a member of the Latin American Club, since much of the social and political events are tied to the club membership. Ben Garza The third community leader is somewhat of an enigma to the community. Ben Garza is in his late 30's and was born and reared in Joe's Corner. Garza is a prime example of the second generation Mexican-American who speaks little Spanish and rarely mixes socially with the Mexican—American community. Garza worked his way up through 39 union activities at a local factory. He quit his factory job and took a position as a "community organizer" with a religiously-affiliated regional agency. Garza is extremely vague when asked about his job. Consequently, few, if any, community members know what his position or role is in the community. On several occasions the investigator noted that Garza's political behavior was impulsive and characteristic of "grandstanding." One such incident involved the local school board. The Mexican—American community for some time had been pressuring local school administrators to imple— ment a bilingual program at an elementary school with a sizable Mexican—American population. The negotiations had been long and delicate. Finally, the Mexican-American community had its chance to go before the school board to make its formal request. Garza, who was in the audience at the meeting, rose and told the board of education that if a bilingual program were not implemented immediately, all Mexican—American children would boycott the schools, before the fourth-Friday count could be taken. Garza felt that the Joe's Corner's schools would lose a lot of state funding if Mexican—American students were not included in this enrollment count. Needless to say, his actions enraged many parents, and also stiffened opposition by several board members. 40 It is difficult to determine Garza's motivation for behavior such as described here. Several agency personnel, however, felt that Garza was trying to establish himself as a bona—fide community leader. It is generally known that he was very close to Juanita Rodriguez; however, he was considered by many to be merely an instrument for her use. This opinion is not shared totally by the investi— gator. The investigator does not doubt that Rodriguez would have used him. However, Garza actually held some power of his own. His power did not come from the com— munity, rather it came from his position on the Manpower Advisory Board. This advisory board had a great amount of input to the County Board of Commissioners who in turn decided the financial fate of many social service agencies in Joe's Corner. Garza was the only Mexican—American on this advisory board and thus, was the voice of the Mexican— American community interests. Therefore, the investigator's opinion is that while Garza did not have as much "grass— roots" support as Rodriguez, his powerful position on the advisory board forced other community leaders to take him . * ser1ously. *After the investigator left Joe's Corner, he learned that Garza had been elected to the County Board of Commissioners. 41 Political Behavior It is necessary to understand the relative success or failure of the Mexican-American community's political advancement through the actions of these three leaders, and one other extremely important factor. This factor is the presence of four very influential older" families, and the control they are able to exert over the community. These families are interrelated by kinship, marriage, and/or "compadrazgo," (Rubel, 1966, pp. 80—83), and are considered influential because of their sheer numbers and length of residence within the community. They are highly respected within the community because of their economic success, but more importantly, for their involvement in most social activities at the Latin American Club. Some— times it is said that without these families the Latin American Club would collapse. If any one leader can influence enough of these families to see things his or her way on an issue, then the support which comes with them through the system of "compadrazgo" is usually enough to settle the issue. This support then gives that particular leader the basis for proclaiming "community support." If, however, these families cannot be won over, the political strategy becomes one of caution and compromise. 42 This is an example of what Rubel (1966), describes as "personalismo." Rubel's analysis of Mexican—American political behavior is that the Mexican—American operates at the "personal level." Rubel points out that Mexican— Americans vote for the person, and not the issues involved. Mexican—Americans' political decisions are therefore based primarily on how well they know the person and values, rather than on what the issues are. (Rubel, 1966, pp. 138—139.) Both systems of "compadrazgo" and personalismo" can be seen operating in Joe's Corner's Mexican—American community. However, in the opinion of the investigator, these concepts are too oversimplified by Rubel's analysis. One should not make the assumption that these concepts are simple in nature and accurate predictors of all Mexican— American social and political behavior. On the contrary, these concepts are extremely complex and involve several variables. Among these variables are: l) the familial responsibilities and obligations which accompany "com- padrazgo"; 2) the time and spatial limitations of a particular family member's identification with Mexican— American culture; and, 3) the personal nature of the relationships which many of these families have shared as a result of their common midwestern experiences. In Joe's Corner, Mexican—American social and political behavior is 43 a manifestation of some or all of these variables operating at times jointly, and at other times independently of each other. Socio-Economic Conditions The final segment of this chapter will concern itself with a description of socio-economic conditions among Mexican-Americans in Joe's Corner. These socio— economic conditions can readily be seen in their housing, income, and employment statistics, as well as those statistics reflecting the need and use of social and public welfare agencies. Housing Housing conditions among Mexican-American families in Joe's Corner vary significantly by geographical location and economic resources. In other ways however, the data reflects no significant differences from location to loca— tion. Of the 364 completed interviewes, 359 contained usable housing information. It is from these 359 inter- views which the information contained in Tables 1, 2, and 3 is obtained. It is readily seen that Zones V and VI are less populous than Zones I through IV. These two zones repre— sent rural communities, and cannot be considered as accurate indicators of housing conditions among all # # % o\° # Zone of Households Who Own Homes Who Own Homes Who Are Buying Who Are Buying Who Rent Who Rent Unknown Households 44 Table 1 PROPERTY-RESIDENT STATUS 164 32 19.5 58 35. 73 44. 3 II 62 12 19. 24 38. 26 41. III 41 3 17.0 17 7 41.4 14 9 34.1 IV 60 13 21.6 21 35.0 26 43.3 18 10 55. 27. 11. VI 14 42. 28. 21. Total 359 80 22. 129 35.9 144 40. 1 HOUSING AND LIVING CONDITIONS Zone I # Households 164 # People 637 Avg. # People Per Household 3.8 Avg. # Rooms Per Household 5.3 Avg. # Rooms Per Person 1.3 Avg. # Bathrooms Per Household 1.1 % Indicating Home as Inadequate 18.2 % Indicating Home as Adequate 78.6 % Home—owners without Home Insurance 3.3 % Home—owners with Home Insurance 91.1 % Households with Insurance on Furnishings 54.2 % Households without Insurance on Furnishings 28.0 45 Table 2 II III 62 41 299 157 4.8 3.8 6.2 5.6 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.1 22.6 12.2 77.4 80.4 2.7 0.0 91.6 100.0 54.8 70.7 27.4 17.0 IV 60 274 1. 1 18 82 VI 14 56 4.9 1.2 1.1 Unknown 1.0 21. 78. 5. 94. 56. 36. 6 3 8 6 6 11.1 83.3 6.6 93.3 83.3 5.5 28.5 64.2 30.0 70.0 57.1 28.5 Total 359 1,505 5.4 18.9 78.3 4.7 91.8 58.2 27.0 46 'l"""" sea e we mm om mm es mpqmeeommmm mo # HHH e m we we me we msmnm>< Boawm # mm m m we m ea mm mmmum>< m>on< e www.mem Heo.mew aae.efim Hmo.maw mmm.saw Nsm.mam aom.mam msam> wfiom omMHo>¢ HM¥OB H> > >H HHH HH H ocoN 'Illl""""l '1'l'"""' mmzom ZflUHmHE DMBflEHBmm m magma 47 Mexican—Americans residing within the county of Joe's Corner. The vast majority of Mexican—Americans reside within the city limits of Joe's Corner, or very close to them. However, it was felt that the statistics concerning the rural zones should be included in order to provide a greater amount of information. Before attempting to analyze the information from Tables 1, 2, and 3, it is necessary to provide some physical description of each of these zones. Zone IV was described earlier in Chapter II, as "e1 barrio" of the Mexican- American community, It is this neighborhood which is considered by many to be sub-standard. The Joe's Corner Metropolitan Planning Commission made a study of this particular neighborhood in July of 1971. The following is a description of the existing conditions within this "barrio", according to that study. The emerging picture of the East Broadway Study Area is one of a neighborhood that "just grew", with no planning, and few services or facilities. It is a deteriorating area, but it differs from the average old deteriorating neighborhood in that its original condition was marginal, its houses small and its amenities few. Its residents, many of whom belong to minority groups, have incomes below the City's average and own homes whose values are considerably lower than the average. The mixed land use pattern in the area, as well as a deficient street system, have created a marginal overall living environment. The lack of utilities service has placed an additional constraint on the area resident and has effectively curtailed signifi— cant new development. 48 The lack of residential amenities includes the scarcity of developed open space and the almost total lack of community facilities, such as convenience commercial and recreational or neighborhood centers. These environmental assets which do exist have been ignored as developmental foci. For the above reasons, as well as through general depreciation, the area's housing stock has deteriorated significantly. A detailed survey of the area's housing could result in a percentage of deficient (deteriora— ting and delapidated) structures far exceeding the original estimates of approximately 16 per cent. It appears likely that this figure could reach 50 per cent. These figures would indicate a very serious need for prompt remedial action. (East Broadway Area-—Neighborhood Study, Joe's Corner Metropolitan Plannign Comm1ssion, July 1971, pp. 20—21.) It is apparent to the casual observer that living conditions in Zone IV have not changed in any significant manner in the elapsed five years since the study was con- ducted. The study mentions "minorities" as the principal residents of Zone IV. These "minorities" which the study mentions are almost exclusively Mexican—Americans. Zone I was also described in Chapter II, but only in part. Zone I contains that part of town known as "la colonia" to some Mexican-Americans. However, Zone I also contains a great part of the downtown and inner—city area. Many of the homes found here are older and have been divided to form low—rent apartments. This zone is also the largest of all zones studied, and contains a great many beautiful homes within it. There are significant difer— ences in socio-economic conditions within this zone alone. However, most Mexican—Americans reside either in the 49 downtown area or in "la colonia" of this zone. While "la colonia does not compare in terms of poverty conditions with Zone IV, the downtown area is certainly very similar to Zone IV in terms of poor living conditions. The reasons for the similarities between these two areas appear to be the general deteriorating conditions of these older parts of town, and the inability of its resi- dents to upgrade their neighborhoods, because of a lack of financial resources. Although the city is undergoing an extensive urban-renewal project, it is limited to the business district and little of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. In essence, it appears that Joe's Corner will someday have an ultra—modern business district, surrounded by a poverty—stricken racially integrated ghetto area. Zones II and III on the other hand, are very dif— ferent from Zones I and IV. These are the more "affluent" areas of Joe's Corner. Although both zones take in a small section of the downtown area, both extend far into the suburbs and offer much more open space, which has been developed for commercial interests and also recreational facilities. Both zones border on "resort" lakes and have many lakeshore homes and cottages. Both zones also border on one of the area's only country clubs. It is in these two zones that many professionals and white collar workers 50 reside. Some Mexican—American families also live in these areas. It is obvious, however, that living conditions are much poorer in Zones I and IV, particularly the latter. This is evidenced by the data from Tables 1, 2, and 3. Of particular interest is the data in Table 2, showing a total of 78.3% of all respondents who felt that their homes were "adequate or satisfactory." This is despite the fact that many of these residents appear to be over-crowded. The average number of rooms per person does not rise above 1.4, and this is in one of the more "affluent" zones. In Zone IV, the average number of rooms per person is 1.1. As an entire population (all six zones), the average number of rooms per person is merely 1.3. Also from Table 2, it is observed that families who rent are less likely to have insurance on their homes or furnishings. Table 3 also shows that Zone IV is the poorest zone in terms of property values. This agrees with information provided by community leaders, educators, and the neighbor— hood study previously cited. Both community leaders and educators cite these low property values as evidence of poverty, a lack of community growth, and educational prob— lems within the schools. However, close inspection of the data suggests that all zones are depressed in terms of property value among Mexican-American households. The 51 average home value for all Mexican-American homes in the entire county is only $15,868. Also, out of a total of 179 homes, 111 are below the average value. This is almost twice the number of those which are above the average value. In Zone IV, the difference between the number of homes above and below the zone average is very small. Therefore, one can make the assumption that most MexicaneAmerican homes in Zone IV have low property values. Income, Employment and Welfare More insight and understanding may be gained by examining other relevant data concerning the socio-economic conditions of Mexican-Americans in Joe's Corner. The following four tables show the income, employment, and welfare data obtained from the Mexican—American community. As can be seen from Table 4, the income level for Mexican-Americans in Joe's Corner is quite low. More than one—third of the Mexican—American population earns $5,900 or less per year. Also, more than one-half of the popula— tion earns $7,900 or less per year. These figures repre— sent the combined incomes of all family members. It should be of special interest to note that 29.7% of all adult Mexican-American females were employed at this time. These income levels are not surprising when one observes the data on Tables 5 and 6. Unemployment among Mexican—American heads of household in Joe‘s Corner is 52 Awm.mmv va.HNv Awo.omv Awm.mNV Awa.mmv Awm.mmv Awm.NmV NHH m m ma ma ma om ooo.oam m>on< Awa.vflv Awm.wNV Awm.mv Awo.wav Awm.mav Awm.NHv Awm.NHV 5v v H HH m n ma ooo.oalooo.wm Awm.hav Awm.vfiv Awo.0Nv Awa.mav Awm.mv Awm.omv Amh.nav ow N m w m ha PN oom.>|ooo.©w Aww.vmv Amh.mmv Awm.mav Awm.mmv Awm.va AWN.MNV Awm.wmv mHH m N «N ma ma mm mmwa MO oom.mw vmm vH ma Hm mm mm NmH mpcmpcommwm m0 # lIllIIlIII|||lII|IIIIII|Il|||lIlIllllIlIl||IlIlllIIIIllllllllllllllllllllllll HMDOB H> > >H HHH HH H OCON """l """'l" mmzmov m.m0b ZH mZ > H O -:-l 'H O 3:: Cl) 0) Q4 .54 O O 2:) 0) C1 0) (l) O a: D m m N 4:: =fl= as: do I 160 5 105 65.6% II 62 0 34 54.8% III 40 2 23 57.5% IV 61 0 43 70.5% V 19 0 5 26 3% VI 14 1 6 42.8% Totals 356 8 216 60.6% 55 extremely high. According to sources within the Employment Security Commission, the overall unemployment rate for the County of Joe's Corner reached a recession-level peak at approximately 18.0%. During this same period, however, (1975), Mexican-American male heads of household experienced a total unemployment rate of 26.5%. The data also indi— cates that Zone IV was higher than any other sector in terms of unemployment. Zone IV shows an unemployment rate of 36.17% for the period April to September of 1975. Table 4 indicates that during the previous two years, 60.6% of all Mexican-American households in Joe's Corner received at least one form of assistance through a social service agency. More specifically, Zone IV ("e1 barrio"), was very high in terms of services received. Of the 61 Mexican-American families interviewed in Zone IV, 43 had received services in the previous two years. The most frequently used services or aid received were: 1) food stamps . . . 24.4% of all households 2) unemployment compensation . . . 16.8% of all households 3) aid to dependent children (ADC) . . . 15.7% of all households 4) social security . . . 13.5% of all households Table 7 shows the types of social services and welfare services received by Mexican-American households in Joe's Corner. Although these figures appear to be 56 Table 7 TYPES OF SERVICES AND WELFARE RECEIVED BY MEXICAN-AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS IN JOE'S CORNER (Urban Zones Only) Type of Service Zone 1 Zone II Zone III Zone IV Food Stamps 40 13 8 21 25.0% 20.9% 20.0% 34.4% Aid to Dependent 26 12 3 11 Children 16.2% 19.4% 7.5% 18.0% Social Security 24 8 3 10 15.0% 12.9% 7.5% 16.4% Vocational 19 7 2 6 Education 11.8% 11.3% 5.0% 9.8% Direct Aid 6 l 0 l 3.7% 1.6% 0 1.6% Unemployment 33 9 8 9 Compensation 8.1% 1.6% 2.5% 8.2% Nutrition 3 1 0 1 Services 1 8% 1.6% O 1.6% Health Services 17 6 3 10 10.6% 9.7% 7.5% 16.4% Counseling 8 1 2 0 5.0% 1.6% 5.0% 0 Special 6 3 0 2 Education 3.7% 4.8% 0 3 3% Adoption 2 0 1 0 Services 1.2% 0 2.5% 0 Family Planning 14 4 1 4 Services 8.7% 6.4% 2.5% 6.5% Type of Service Adoption Services Family Planning Services 57 Table 7 (continued) Zone I Zone II Zone III Zone IV 2 0 1 0 1.2% 0 2.5% 0 l4 4 l 4 8.7% 6.4% 2.5% 6.5% 58 relatively high, according to the Director of the Depart- ment of Social Services for the County of Joe's Corner, Mexican-Americans comprise only 3% of their total recip— ients. One must then assume that in general, there are many persons receiving social and welfare services besides the Mexican-American population. These statistics will become even more important in Chapter III, where the need and use of social service and welfare agencies will be more critically examined. Closing Statements In summary, one can see that Mexican—Americans in Joe's Corner are heterogeneous in social and economic class, as well as social and political behavior. The Mexican—American community has in general, had a long history in Joe's Corner. Consequently, the attitudes and values held by community residents have been shaped not only by the Mexican—American culture, but also by the collective and individual experiences of the Mexican- American in the midwest--and in this particular case, Joe's Corner, Michigan. To assume that everything about the Mexican—American in the midwest can be learned through a single semi-vicarious experience, would be erroneous. Chapter III SOCIAL AND PUBLIC WELFARE SERVICES Social and public welfare agencies in Joe's Corner are numerous. According to information supplied by the United Way county office, there are 115 agencies which provide services within the county. These agencies repre— sent approximately 55 areas of services, ranging from child abuse and community health, to legal and educational services. According to its Executive Director, the United Way, in varying degrees, lends financial support to 43 of these agencies. For the investigator, it was a physical impos— sibility to research each of these agencies. However, an effort was made at researching agencies representative of the scope and nature of social and public welfare services available to the residents of Joe's Corner. The cate- gories of agencies which were researched were: 1) education, 2) employment, 3) family services, 4) financial assistance, 59 . n \j n. 1.1... Tx 1arc...itwft..qtzflwllurlrbourmn 60 5) medical and health care, and, 6) legal services. The following is a listing of the specific agencies contacted under each category and a brief description of the types of services that particular agency has available. 1) 2) Education a. Adult Education Program. This program offers a variety of courses which adults can take. The basic thrust of the program is aimed at helping adults obtain a high school diploma, or G.E.D. equivalancy. Alcoholism Information Center. This agency concerns itself with the individual and familial problems of alcoholics. It provides information about how a family can help the alcoholic, as well as referring alcoholics to treatment centers. The Skills Training Center. The role of the Skills Training Center is to provide job training for persons meeting federal poverty guidelines. Students are paid a stipend for attending classes. Employment a. Department of Human Resources. This is a county agency which makes referrals to industry and business, aiding them with their manpower needs. Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. This agency is aimed at providing job skills to persons who are mentally or physically handicapped. Employment Security Commission. This state agency is aimed at assisting people in locat— ing employment. It also makes referrals to job or skill training centers. The Urban League. This agency is aimed at placing people in job training programs in 61 industry and business, as well as job and skill training centers. e. Community Action Against Poverty. This agency sets up neighborhood centers aimed at job or welfare referrals. 3) Family Services a. Catholic Social Services. This is a referral agency. It makes a needs assessment on families and individuals, then refers them to the proper agency. b. Child and Family Services. The goals of this agency are to help those in need of adoption, counseling, or juvenile court assistance. c. The Children's Home. This agency places children in foster homes, arranges adoptions, counsels families with problems, and conducts family planning and pregnancy clinics. d. Planned Parenthood, Inc. This agency is aimed at helping people with family planning. e. Family Planning Program. Aimed at family planning, this agency also conducts pregnancy ‘tests, venereal disease screening, and abortion counseling. f. County Health Department. This agency con— cerns itself with a wide range of services, including preventative medicine, drug abuse programs, innoculations, and water sanitation. g. Department of Social Services. This agency also provides wide-ranging services including direct financial assistance, aid to dependent children, juvenile custody, food stamps, and home visits. This agency is also in charge of medicaid services. 4) Financial Assistance a. Social Security Administration. This federal agency disburses social security funds, and social security benefits to qualified dependents. 62 b. The Urban League (See above). 5) Medical and Health Care a. Visiting Nurses Association. This agency provides nursing services to mainly the bedridden elderly. b. West Shore Mental Health Clinic. This agency is not totally free. It provides individual psychiatric treatment and family counseling. c. Department of Social Services (See above). 6) Legal Services a. Legal Aid Bureau, Inc. This agency provides legal services for clients who cannot afford to hire their own attorneys. As can be easily seen, several of these agencies serve multiple functions in the community. Also, inherent in many of these agencies are numerous sources of funding, including federal, state and county monies. Some of these agencies also receive private donations and may also charge a fee for services rendered. Structure of Agencies These are but a few of the many agencies found in Joe's Corner. There also exist separate agencies which are funded through federal manpower programs. The bulk of these agencies are aimed at combating poverty by providing job training for people meeting the federal poverty guide— lines. Some manpower programs are aimed at problems faced by women, ex-offenders, and other "special-interest" groups. All of these agencies are governed by boards of directors, 63 composed of a wide spectrum of the community. These boards are usually representative of most minority groups, business, law, religion, industry, and others from the community. The director of each agency is responsible to the Manpower Programs Director within the county political structure. The Manpower Director is directly responsible to the County Board of Commissioners and a regional Man— power office in Chicago. The regional office is in turn responsible directly to federal officials in Washington, D.C. However, at the county level, there is a powerful advisory body to the county commissioners. This is called the Manpower Advisory Board (See reference in Chapter II). This board is usually composed of community leaders with a great amount of county-level political experience. This board is powerful because it can approve or disapprove any agency proposal, including their budgets. The following is a schematic drawing of the Manpower Program structure in Joe's Corner. Agency Boards of Directors 64 Figure 2 Manpower Agency Structure D.O.L. Washington, D.C. Regional Office County Board of Comm1551oners Manpower Advisory Board Manpower Programs Director Agency Directors . 5 £55? rcifirU‘JA U1To . 65 It is important that one understand the signif— icance of these Manpower agencies in direct reference to the Mexican-American community. The agencies are supposedly there to create employment opportunites and up—grade the standard of living within the community. From a political viewpoint, it makes agencies look good in the eyes of the community when they claim to be helping people. It appears, however, that helping people is not the only goal of these agencies. Once these agencies are initiated, high priority is given to agency survival. Much time is thus spent on creating a rationale for the agency's con— tinued existence. The work of creating this rationale does not always coincide with the needs of the community. Instead, it helps to keep the agency staff employed. The outward appearances given by most agencies are all usually very positive. However, there is ample proof to show that many of these agencies are misrepresenting or not meeting their stated objectives, and are, intheir present form, of little value to the Mexican—American community. This is evidenced by several factors. Among them are: 1) a general lack of understanding for Mexican-Americans, 2) stereotyped images of the Mexican—Americans, 3) a lack of affirmative action hiring policies towards Mexican—Americans, and, 66 4) an overall lack of commitment by local funding sources to aid the Mexican—American community. This last point must be elaborated upon in order for it to be correctly understood and interpreted. This lack of commitment on the part of local funding sources means that too often "soft money" is used in the hiring of many Mexican—Americans within local agencies. When these federal "soft money" funds expire, the county does not revert to making room within its own budget in order to keep these people employed. Consequently, some people are hired, then laid off due to a lack of funds. Some of these people begin drawing unemployment benefits, while others are rehired under a different "soft money" program. The major consequence of this action is that some people are forced to leap from job to job, without ever acquiring any sense of security or employment fringe benefits. This approach to employing Mexican—Americans within the community is within itself self—defeating, and greatly resembles tokenism. Mexican—Americans who have had these types of work experiences are never made to feel as if they are a part of the system, like other employees around them. Instead, they are made to feel, at best, "marginal". They are constantly worried with whether or not the program will be refunded. "Will I have a job tomorrow?" These workers many times lose a great amount of credibility within the Mexican—American community because - 5. . ..fi.Ir-K-ul-fi.3, at, 5...! 59.1,- . 11.“.l‘ l 1 1 l ‘llll i ‘lll| 67 of the instability associated with their positions. Several community members who are recipients of services have expressed doubts about the worker's ability to func— tion properly within the community. As one lady said, "one day they're here, and the next day they are somewhere else. You can't count on anyone." She was referring to a person switching jobs so often. To better understand all of these points, and to try and get a clear idea of agencies and their structure and functions, it is necessary to take an in—depth look at several of them, representative of the agency structure in Joe's Corner. These agencies, with the exception of El Centro Latino, are all experienced agencies, and have been a part of the community since at least 1965. Through an examination of this type, one can begin to understand their failures and successes relative to the Mexican—American population. Among the agencies charged with providing services to the community, are the Skills Training Center (STC), the Family Planning Project (FPP), the Employment Security Commission (ESC) and El Centro Latino. These agencies are combinations of local, state and federal programs and are representative of education, health, employment and referral service agencies. 68 Skills Training Center The Skills Training Center was begun in June of 1965, as the result of some ”go-getters" in the local school district, who wanted to deal with the "drop—out" problem. "Go—getters" is the term used by the Program Manager of the STC. She was referring to a group of Joe's Corner educators who saw the opportunity to attract federal funds and did so. According to the Program Manager of the Skills Training Center, "nobody in Joe's Corner wanted to admit that there was a drop—out problem." Funds were allo— cated for the center through the Manpower Act of 1962. The funds were both federal and state, and were given to the Joe's Corner Board of Education, through which the center is operated. All students at the Skills Training Center receive stipends for attending. These are based on the number of dependents a student has, and also their attendance record, since students lose wages when they are late or absent. According to the Program Manager of the STC, most students average approximately $60.00 per week. The real goal or objective of the STC is to get people ready for employment. This preparation includes the attainment of an employable skill, a "good" attitude, "good" attendance, and a sense of responsibility for themselves and their equipment. These goals are achieved 69 through various classes such as group counseling, attitude classes, and their skills classes. In addition to these classes, there are classes in related instruction such as math and English. The skills offered at the STC are: 1. Production Machine Repairman, 2. Welder, 3. Auto Body Repairman, 4. Clerical, 5. Accounting Clerk, 6. Farm and Power Equipment Repair, 7. House Repair and Maintenance, and, 8. Auto Mechanic. A schematic organizational chart for the Skills Training Center is as follows: Figure 3 Organizational Structure of the Skills Training Center Program Manager Counselor Vocational and Related Staff Aides (2) U.M.O.I. Basic Skills Component fi s13....,1ia§i§tfeuits - r. 1.1!...1.’ .3 7.9.4 70 The Director is responsible to the Board of Education, with all other staff directly responsible to him or the program manager. There are 27 staff members mainly from industry, who are paid through the school district. In addition to these staff members, there are other agencies which provide staff people to the Skills Center. Of particular importance are the staff provided by the Employment Security Commission and the United Migrants for Opportunity, Inc. It is important to understand why components of these two agencies are located at the Skills Training Center. First, the ESC has at least one counselor assigned there because the ESC sets the guidelines for the acceptance of trainees into the training programs, and each applicant is a direct referral of the employment office. According to John Mitchell, Director of the ESC, the guide— lines for accepting trainees into the STC are that at least 65% of all trainees must be poor, disadvantaged, and any one of the following. 1. disabled, 2. a minority, 3. over age 45, 4. under age 22, or, 5. a high school drop—out. The other agency which houses a staff at the STC is the United Migrants for Opportunity, Inc. (UMOI). The UMOI connection to the STC differs from other agencies 71 because the UMOI component is a self—contained program aimed mainly at the migrant population of the county. The UMOI in essence "buys" into the STC facilities using its own funds. The UMOI pays for each student it admits, although each student must meet the ESC guidelines. The basic component of the UMOI office within the STC is charged with teaching basic English reading and writing skills. The idea is that once a trainee completes the basic education course, he is then admitted to one of the skill components. This concept appears to be sound, however, in reality, it is extremely impractical. It is impractical from the viewpoint of the migrant. First, he is put into a Basic Education class for 6 months, then transferred to a "skills" class for an additional 4 to 6 months. Since most of these students are married and have families, it is very difficult for them to exist financially on the $60.00 to $85.00 per week stipend. The majority of these students seek out the STC only as a last resort. If they are unable to find secure employment elsewhere, then they apply at the STC. It is known by students and agency personnel alike, that many students are there "only for the money." "A married man with a family to support can hardly be expected to remain a student for about a year, at such a low level of sub- sistance,’ remarked one agency staff person. 72 Being that Anglo and Black students do not have the communication problem experienced by some Mexican—American students, it is easily conceivable how they can in essence "afford" to enter the STC for $85.00 per week. They will only be there at most for 6 months, and usually less. Mexican—American trainees, however, have to spend double time, for the same results——a salable skill. According to the Program Manager, this may perhaps be a reason why the UMOI and Skills Training Center have such a difficult time retaining Mexican—American students until graduation. According to the UMOI Basic Skills teacher, since the UMOI component of the STC is not paid for by the school district, the STC supervisory personnel does not really show much concern for it. Several times within the past year, the STC Director and Program Manager showed scorn for the UMOI Basic Education Program. Once, the STC fired a Mexican—American instructor and replaced her with an Anglo "certified" teacher. The only problem with that, according to several students, was that the new teacher could not speak Spanish very well. When the students objected to the hiring of the new teacher, they were told they would lose their classroom facilities, and therefore, their paychecks. It should be pointed out that although the STC houses the UMOI staff, it does not pay their salaries. There are no Mexican-Americans on the paid staff of the STC. 73 This issue has been regularly raised by several community leaders. However, the STC has never responded in any positive way to the community. Community leaders also tried to get the STC to enroll more Mexican—American students into their skill components. The response, according to those leaders, has always been minimal. Family Planning Project One of the more traditional agencies operating in Joe's Corner is the Family Planning Project (FPP) operating through the auspices of the County Health Department. This program is totally funded by federal monies provided to the state by the Health, Education and Welfare Department (HEW). The state then distributes this money to the local level. The organization of the FPP is as follows: 74 Figure 4 Organizational Structure of the Family Planning Project HEW State Health Department County Health Department Board of Health Health Officer Health Administrator Director of Nursing FPP Nursing Supervisor Clinical Services Social Health Educator Medical Nurse Practitioner 75 According to the nursing supervisor, the overall goal of the FPP is "to reach all of the patients." Also, the FPP has, as a goal, to service all low—income patients who could not get these services through a doctor. The supervisor added that nobody was ever refused services because of income level and also that all services and supplies were free. The types of services provided by the FPP are as follows: 1. Lab testing—~venereal disease, blood, etc. 2. Pregnancy testing. 3. Teen Services--Anyone under 18 years of age who goes to the clinic must see a counselor. Upon interviewing the patient, the counselor makes the determination if they are sexually active, and sees that they receive the proper services and supplies. 4. Counseling——This is actually done during all phases of patient care. The FPP counsels all patients as to pregnancy, methods of birth control, venereal disease, abortions, etc. 5. Pre-marital Counseling——This is available before marriage and also includes pre-marital testing of females if desired. 6. Sterilization--Sterilization is available for both sexes. Vasectomies are performed at the Clinic, while females are usually referred to a doctor. 7. Infertility Counseling-~The clinic provides the basic medical screening for patients unable to have children. These patients are usually referred to a doctor. There is another phase of the FPP which tries to involve the community. This is the clinic's outreach 76 phase. This facet of the program has 3 girls who visit communities and well-baby clinics, and inform people as to the free services provided by the FPP. According to the supervisor, "one of these 3 girls was a Mexican-American, but she is no longer with us." The nursing supervisor added that the FPP had an advisory board which was composed of "agency people" and patients. She said the role of the board was to provide input to the program, as well as advise and evaluate the program. The following statistics were also provided by the nursing supervisor: 1. From January 1973 to August 1973, there were 6,816 patients seen. Of these patients, 49% had less than 12 years of education, and 46% of those 18 and 19 years of age had completed 12 years of education. From January 1973 to August 1973: a. 5% of all patients earned $1,000 or less, b. % of all patients earned $1,000—$1,999, c. 19% of all patients earned $2,000—$2,999, d. 17% of all patients earned $3,000—$3,999, e. 1.5% of all patients earned over $10,000 per year. 57% of all patients were never married. 33% of all patients were presently married. 4% of all patients were divorced. % of all patients were separated from their spouses. From all outward appearances it would appear that the Family Planning Project was attempting to deliver some 77 vital services to the general community. Seeing as how they had served so many people within the eight months specified, the investigator inquired specifically about the services provided within the Mexican-American community. Although the supervisor was at a loss for statistics, she was able to provide some information. In direct reference to Mexican—Americans, the supervisor said that the FPP had encountered their own share of problems, especially with the older people. She said birth control among Mexican—Americans was a problem because of the influence of religion or church. She also expressed the attitude that some Mexican—American husbands refused to allow their wives to take the pill (birth control pill). She added that a vasectomy for a "Chicano", was "almost out of the question due to their cultural upbringing and personal pride." She did say that "younger kids" were more accepting of the program's efforts. From the outward appearances during the interview, the investigator got the distinct impression that this agency was lacking in its total understanding of Mexican— Americans within Joe's Corner. The overall approach of the FPP appeared to lack tact and sensitivity towards Mexican— Americans in general. Although the investigator was not aware of the Nursing Director's information sources, it was assumed that these attitudes towards Mexican-Americans 78 came from personal clinic contact. This lack of understanding can best be exemplified by 1) what the investigator observed at the clinic; 2) what agency people said in relation to Mexican—Americans; and 3) what several community people had to say to the inves— tigator, concerning the FPP. The following are three examples of each of the aforementioned sources. Example 1: Investigator's Observation Upon entering the receiving office of the FPP, I noticed an extremely large wall display of birth control methods. This display was in full view of all patients as they waited to be helped by differ— ent staff members. Of particular interest to the investigator, was an over—enlarged prophylactic on display. The investigator felt uncomfortable and slightly embarrassed by the over-enlarged condom. It was difficult not to feel that others (non— Mexican—Americans included) could also be easily embarrassed by this particular display. Example 2: FPP Staff Member's Observations While interviewing the nursing supervisor, the investigator was introduced to a male nurse within the program. The following is a summary of that encounter, complete with direct quotes: He began telling me that venereal disease (VD), was a major problem and that with regards to Mexican—Americans, even more so. He explained that they (FPP), did have a language barrier with some of the Mexican-Americans and were sometimes hardpressed to find interpreters. He added that problems with Mexican-Americans also increase because of the personal nature of VD. "Many times we can treat the male Mexican—American, but it is difficult to find out anything about his wife or girlfriends. They simply will not talk about who they are or anything. We understand that this is all a very cultural thing." He continued by saying, "the VD problem is even 79 more acute among migrants."* I asked him why it was more acute. He simply said that because they migrated so much——that was the real problem in terms of VD. "It's because they all have prosti- tutes on the side. Living in Texas near the border makes it very easy for them. Mexico is bad news when it comes to VD. I know that it's a cultural thing, and it is acceptable to them and their women, but it really poses a serious problem for us." Example 3: Service Recipients In speaking with several young adults, the investigator became engaged in a casual conversa- tion with a girl I shall call Sara. Sara is a 21 year old high school drop—out, who comes from a family of 16, including her parents. Sara has an illegitimate child, 3 years of age. I asked if she had ever considered birth control. She stated that both she and her mother had attended some night classes in birth control sponsored through the FPP. She said that the explicit movies and explanations given by "male" speakers had very much embarrassed her mother and her. She said that she and her mother decided not to return to the classes. It is the investigator's opinion that although the FPP may be trying to provide a valuable service to the community at large, it is failing in its efforts within the Mexican-American community. This opinion is supported by statistics in Table 7, showing that very few Mexican— Americans have received any type of family planning services. Furthermore, the attitudes expressed by the FPP staff and also their educational approach seems to leave much to be desired. *Note: From all indications of collected data, there are relatively few migrants in this particular county. 80 The FPP staff was correct in only one thing con— cerning Mexican-Americans, and that is that sex is of a very personal nature to them. Sex however, is personal to many people, ethnicity not withstanding. With this in mind, programs could be developed to facilitate their effectiveness in the Mexican—American community. Another consideration which the FPP should take into account is their lack of Mexican-American professional staff. Hiring someone to interpret is fine, however, the bulk of the Mexican—American community will not be reached unless they have people they can feel secure with. Obviously, from the attitudes and misconceptions expressed, the FPP has no one who is qualified to do this. Employment Security Commission Another vital entity of any community is the employment center. Given the status of today's job market, it is necessary to take an in-depth look at how the employ- ment office is structured. In this manner, one can better understand its relationship to the community, and how it tries to meet the specific needs of that particular community. The Employment Security Commission of Joe's Corner is composed of three basic programs: employment, unemploy- ment, and the Work Incentive Program (WIN). The emphasis being on employment per se, the investigator only 81 researched the employment aspects of the agency. However, to clarify the distinctions between the three programs, it is necessary to say that the WIN Program is a stipended program geared to providing monetary incentives to people trying to learn basic job skills. The Unemployment Program is where people register for, and upon qualifying, receive unemployment benefits. The Employment Office, however, is charged with finding jobs for people. According to John Mitchell, Director of the Employment Security Commission, the goal or objective of the ESC is to "help employers get workers, help workers get jobs, and to help people get jobs." In order to understand how the ESC tries to perform its duties, it is necessary to view a schematic of its organi— zational structure. 82 Figure 5 Organizational Structure of the Employment Security Commission State Office Employment Director Food Stamp Statistical Program Reporting Veteran's Employee Employer's Relations Representative Representative Employment Service Testing Supervisor Program Placement Service Supervisor Employment Counselors (2) Interviewers Intake Skills Training (6) Counselor Center Counselor ' 83 When a person seeking employment first arrives at the ESC, he is met by an intake clerk who asks that the client fill out an application for employment. The intake clerk also registers the applicant (client) with the ESC. After this preliminary task is completed, the client is referred to an intake counselor. This counselor is respon— sible for interviewing the client in order to ascertain any specific job skills the client may possess, and also, what type of job he is seeking. The client is then referred to the employment counselor who also interviews him and may also test the client. Based on the interviews and the test results, the employment counselor makes a determination as to the client's "job-readiness". Mitchell described "job-readiness" as the client's ability to perform on a job, by skill, as well as emotionally and psychologically. If the client is judged job-ready", then he is referred to the placement services, where the client and a counselor try to match available jobs to the client's skills. This part of the job—seeking process is almost entirely left up to the client. The placement services interviewer merely assists in showing the client how to look through the job descrip— tion files. However, if the client is judged to not be "job—ready" for any reason, then the employment counselor has the responsibility to counsel and refer the client to 84 the proper "educational agency" in order to prepare him. One such agency used for referral is the Skills Training Center. It is only after a client is deemed "job—ready", that he is allowed to search the job files. The job files of the ESC are kept in what Mitchell referred to as a Job Bank. This is a computerized system for listing jobs state-wide. Mitchell also noted that the Job Bank was expanding to a nation-wide computerized system. According to Mitchell, this would enable the ESC to place people in jobs which were out of town as well as out of state. Mitchell then listed the job descriptions contained in the Job Bank. They were: 1. Manufacturing—-factories, etc., 2. Professional, clerical, and sales, 3. Service Industries——hospitals, restaurants, and, 4. Communications, Transportation and Utilities. Mitchell made two points which were of significance to the study of this agency. In talking about the Job Bank and the overall depressed employment conditions, he insin- uated that not all clients were treated equally. His exact words in describing people coming from out of town looking for employment were: "Of course you don't tell everyone everything, we want to give the locals (local people), a chance first." 85 The next significant point Mitchell made was in direct reference to minorities in general. Mitchell noted that "veterans, minorities, and the poor, remain longer in the employment files. The longer someone remains in the files, the less chance there is of getting a job." Mitchell could not explain why this was so. His only comment was that, "it is just too bad that things have to be that way." It was apparent to the investigator that Mitchell was being vague during this portion of the interview. It must be remembered that the ESC plays a vital role in trying to find employment for the approximately 19,000 people who use their services each year. However, there are indications that the ESC does not live up to its stated goals and objectives. Furthermore, in its efforts to help veterans, minorities and the poor, the ESC by its own admission, is failing. There may indeed be many reasons for this. However, it seems that the ESC is not actively seeking ways to improve their services. Although the ESC is not directly or financially tied to the County Board of Commissioners or the Manpower Agency structure, it finds ways of "cooperating" with these agencies. The best example which can be used is their referral system. Since many of the Manpower Agencies are specifically geared to meeting the needs of the poor, and disadvantaged, the ESC at times tries to "unload" some of 86 its clients on these agencies. These are termed "referrals" and are recorded as positive statistics or terminations for the ESC. In specific reference to the Mexican-American community, the ESC appears to be at a total disadvantage. This is meant to imply that they are in essence unaware of the employment problems of Mexican-Americans in Joe's Corner. Mexican-Americans have one of the highest unemploy— ment rates among adult males in Joe's Corner (26.5%). Yet, in looking at how many received employment services from the ESC, there were few indeed. (See Tables 5 and 7 in Chapter II.) El Centro Latino, Inc. The fourth and final agency to be examined in- depth, is the agency with which the investigator had the most experience. This agency was El Centro Latino, an agency funded initially by the County Board of Commis— sioners. El Centro Latino's main purpose was to link the Mexican-American community with the other Manpower agencies, through a system of referrals. The agency was funded in October, 1974, and began operations in January, 1975. The investigator joined the staff in March, 1975. The following is a schematic drawing of El Centro Latino's initial internal structure: 87 Figure 6 Organizational Structure of El Centro Latino, Inc. County Board of Commissioners Manpower Advisory Board Manpower Office El Centro Latino Director Directors Outreach Employment Coordinator Coordinator The Mexican-Amerlcan Commun1ty The main function of El Centro Latino was to make referrals. This meant that Mexican—American or Spanish- speaking community members could come to this specific agency with a problem, then be referred to the agency handling problems of that nature. The investigator's opinion is that the intent of El Centro Latino's original goals were positive and achievable. However, the problems that arose due to the expansion of agency and its personnel eventually led to its closing. 88 Although it is difficult for the investigator to remain totally objective in his description of El Centro Latino, due to the nature of his close involvement with the agency, an attempt at objectivity will be made. Where the investigator feels that objectivity is lacking, references will be made in the first person, and set off from the main body of the text. It was my opinion that El Centro Latino made an initial mistake in the hiring of its Director. First, the committee responsible for the Director's hiring was led by Juanita Rodriguez. In many con- versations with Juanita, I discovered that she was very feminist in her views, and consequently had insisted on a female Director for the center. The person hired as Director was Gloria Steiner, a 24 year—old recent college graduate, with quite an array of impressive social service agency experience. Steiner claimed to be one—half Mexican- American, and one-half Jewish. In the absence of Mexican—American college graduate applications, Steiner's own feminist views, and also her agency experience, it was my feeling that she was specif- ically hired by Juanita Rodriguez. When I joined the staff of El Centro in March of 1975, it was apparent to me that Steiner was experiencing problems with Rodriguez. Steiner claimed that Rodriguez was trying to control her and the agency too much. She said that Rodriguez (who was President of E1 Centro's Board of Direc- tors), was trying to get her involved as a member of the Latin American Club, and was also "pushing" her to "go out into the community." Rodriguez on the other hand complained to me that "Gloria was isolating" herself too much from "e1 barrio". "All she wants to do is stay in her office and attend agency Directors' meetings," she would say. I felt almost from the beginning of my employ— ment with El Centro that there was bound to be a power struggle between Rodriguez and Steiner. With the knowledge I had gained of the Mexican— American community and Rodriguez, I was sure that Steiner did not stand a chance of taking political control of the community. 89 By May of 1975, I had begun to learn many interesting things about the community, El Centro Latino, and the various personalities involved with its daily operation. I had begun to suspect that Gloria Steiner was not really Mexican— American, and perhaps this was the principal reason why she felt so uncomfortable going "into the community." Steiner's use of the Spanish language was also a hint. Her Spanish sounded extremely foreign, and when trying to use "barrio speech", it sounded terribly phony and incorrect. I kept this to myself and concentrated on conduct- ing the survey within the community. Other very interesting observations which I made were: 1) the secretary hired by El Centro was a niece of Juanita Rodriguez, 2) the "legal" opinion of the Board of Directors was that Rodriguez's niece did not constitute nepotism, 3) Steiner was not well liked in the com- munity--especially by the women, and, 4) the rift between Steiner and Rodriguez was becoming more pronounced. I feel obligated to elaborate on points 3 and 4. First, Steiner, I noticed, began seeing quite a succession of men. From personal accounts given me by several persons in the community, I gathered that she was very aggressive sexually. It appears that this did not impress the more conservative ladies in the community. Indeed, even Rodriguez had begun to hear rumors. I must admit that to my knowledge, these rumors were correct. Concerning point 4, the division between Rodriguez and Steiner, I felt that Rodriguez's niece had quite a lot to do with it. It appeared to me that Steiner was somewhat paranoid about her secretary. She felt that the secretary was "running to her aunt" with everything that occurred at the agency. My distinct impression was that Steiner was afraid of the secretary and was also growing to dislike her immensely. During June, July, and August, El Centro Latino experienced a period of tremendous growth, and also some problems which severely tested the Board of Directors and administrative staff. Beginning in June, El Centro was awarded an additional $187,000 to commence a training pro— gram. The aim of the program was to train individuals in the community in the areas of 90 legal and human services. It was felt that those students learning legal service skills could take jobs as clerks and assistants in law offices. Those students learning human services skills could take positions as social worker aides. The concept of the new programs seemed sound. However, it began to occur to me and others, that very few jobs would be obtained as a result of the training. After all, I asked, "with 15 students in each training area, how many possible legal and human services aides could Joe's Corner handle?" Initially, this did not seem to bother Steiner or anyone else. Several new people were added to the staff as a direct result of the training programs. Also, another staff member was added with funds obtained to establish a Senior Citizens group for Mexican— Americans at the center. Therefore, El Centro grew and took on the following schematic appearance: Figure 7 Expanded Organizational Structure of El Centro Latino, Inc. County Board of Commissioners Manpower Board of Office Directors Outreach El Centro Latino Coordinator Director Human Employment Services Coordinator Manpower Advisory Board Senior Citizen's oordinator Basic Skills Instructor Legal Services Instructo Trainees Trainees (15) (15) Instructor 91 The problems that came with the new programs were many and complex. The first problem came with the students. There were decisions to be made as to who qualified and who did not. This alienated several community members whose relatives or friends were not accepted into the training programs. Also, the Senior Citizens' coordinator had two sons who were accepted into the programs. This also looked like nepotism, but it did not seem to bother Steiner or the Board of Directors. It did, however, bother some people in the community. The disciplining of students also became a problem. The two sons of the Senior Citizens' coordinator seemed to feel that they could do as they pleased. Steiner reprimanded them several times until she finally tired of the situation and recommended that one of the brothers be released from the program. This incurred the wrath of Rodriguez, who was the President of the Board. Rodriguez and the brothers' mother were also very close and intimate friends. Instead of approving Steiner's recommen— dation, the Board reprimanded her. Another problem arose with the hiring of the bookkeeper for the new programs. The new employee was "Anglo", which I felt infuriated Rodriguez. Rodriguez, however, did not interfere. Rodriguez's niece, however, did interfere. She was vehemently opposed to the new girl's hiring because she felt that she was too "sexy". She made her views known to both Steiner and me. She insinuated that all of the male trainees and staff members would con- stantly be "after her". Despite her secretary's protests, Steiner hired the girl. It was my feeling that this set off a major battle between the secretary and the bookkeeper. This battle finally erupted into full-scale war between the two. Rodriguez was also incensed at the hiring of two other "Anglos" for the Training Program. One component of the training program was aimed at helping the trainees achieve a solid bilingual (Spanish—English), fluency in their work objec— tives. This was called the Basic Skills Com— ponent. The other component for which an "Anglo" was hired was the Legal Services Program. El Centro continued to operate its training programs until October of 1975. During the course of the training programs, it was apparent to the 92 agency staff and myself, that the majority of the students were there not solely for the training, but mainly for the stipends they received. As a result of the inadequate management of the training programs, the Manpower Program's Director threatened to not fund El Centro Latino any further. This was protested by Steiner, Rodriguez, and the agency's Board of Directors. The Manpower office appeared to back down and funding was continued. This funding was contingent upon the restructuring of training program goals at El Centro. It was felt that there was little need to train legal and human services trainees in the community, and therefore El Centro Latino should concentrate on different programs. El Centro Latino's response was to create a new program to train students in job readiness and survival skills. This new training program began in January of 1976. The agency training staff remained the same. Throughout this entire period of training programs at El Centro Latino, many other problems arose. Indeed it appeared to me that Steiner was operating the agency on a crisis to crisis basis. One such crisis involved the "warfare" between the secretary and bookkeeper. I was present and "Acting Director" of El Centro, (Steiner was out of town), when I wit— nessed a verbal fight taking place between the two employees. The secretary apparently lost her temper and took a swing at the bookkeeper. She did not strike the bookkeeper. I filed a report of this incident and consequently the secretary was fired from her job. Rodriguez, the secretary's aunt, put the blame on Steiner, although I had suggested firing as a means to end the problem. Rodriguez did not blame me although I testified at a closed Board hearing that I had witnessed the fight. Rodriguez and I had become good friends and I felt that it was my responsibility to be truthful about the incident. Steiner on the other hand, incurred the wrath of Rodriguez again. Also, the secretary hired to replace the departed one, was "Anglo". Through problems like these the agency con— tinued its struggle to remain afloat. The agency was finally closed in June of 1976, three and one—half months after I had left its staff. 93 In many ways it appears as if of all the agencies studied, El Centro Latino has the majority of the problems. This, in the opinion of the investigator, is an erroneous assumption for anyone to make. All of the agencies studied had daily problems. Those of El Centro Latino merely stand out because of the investigator's intimate contact with that particular agency. Given similar contact with other agencies, the investigator's opinion is that similar prob— lems would emerge. These four examples of agency services in Joe's Corner are only indicative of the overall scope of social and public welfare agencies operating within the community. Many other agencies are also operating in a similar fashion. The ultimate impact which these agencies have on the Mexican-American community is difficult to assess. Agency Impact on the Community The impact these agencies have on the Mexican— American community as previously stated, is difficult to assess. However, perhaps the best measure of agency success can be shown by the statistics reflecting the need and use of such agencies by the Mexican—American community. The statistics presented in Chapter 11 under the title "Socio-economic Conditions," show an overall general description of the housing, income, and employment charac- teristics of the Mexican-American community. Table 7 in 94 particular, shows the use of agency services by the com- munity. It can easily be inferred that while the need for social and public welfare agencies appears great, the actual services received by the community are few. The reasons for the lack of services received by the community are in the investigator's opinion, also difficult to determine. However, it is the investigator's thesis that these reasons are based on the attitudes mani— fested by the agencies and the community towards each other. Agency Attitudes Towards Mexican—Americans From the descriptions of the four agencies studied in-depth, one can surmise that agencies in general have a negative attitude towards Mexican—Americans. This is evidenced by the lack of regard given the Mexican—American by such agencies as the Skills Training Center and the Family Planning Project. Of perhaps critical importance are the attitudes concerning the Mexican-American community, as evidenced by its own agency, El Centro Latino. In general, the investi- gator noted that the staff of El Centro Latino was very concerned with the conditions within the Mexican—American community. The employment coordinator was always working hard at trying to find scarce jobs; the Director was work- ing hard at expanding the agency; and rules were many times "bent" to accommodate people in need of help. 95 This view of El Centro Latino's efforts contrasts sharply with the efforts of other agencies. However, it appears that the one most notable feature of all agencies, is the effort and time spent on surviving as agencies. The structure imposed upon them in essence makes it difficult for the agencies to determine and meet community needs. Too much time must be allocated by the agency for ration— alizing their political and economic survival. Another important aspect of agency attitudes toward the Mexican-American community is the feeling by many agencies that the Mexican-American is having his needs met by other agencies-—in particular, the United Migrants for Opportunity, Inc. Agencies such as the Skills Training Center, the Family Planning Project, and the Legal Aid Bureau, are examples of agencies whose Directors expressed convictions that UMOI was supposed to handle all problems relevant to the Mexican-American. The attitudes of the Skills Training Center and the Family Planning Project can be assessed from the descriptions of their services and operations in an earlier segment of this chapter. On the other hand, the Legal Aid Bureau, an agency not examined in—depth in this chapter, viewed the Mexican-American population of Joe's Corner as "mainly a migrant population," not existing in large numbers. 96 Historical and demographic evidence presented in Chapter II shows that this attitude is erroneous. The Mexican—American population of Joe's Corner is an old and well "settled—out" population. Mexican—American migrant workers do exist in the vicinity, but generally are located in the northern adjacent county, approximately 35 miles away. Also, the UMOI agency is strictly an organization aimed at helping agricultural fieldworkers. It does not involve itself with the non-migrant population. Community Attitudes Towards Agencies The types of attitudes shown by agencies toward the Mexican-American population makes it difficult for the community to have positive attitudes towards the agencies. Mexican—Americans in general feel that they are lowest on the agencies' priority ladders. Table 7 in Chapter II shows the use of agency services as reported by the Mexican-American population.’ In general, such services as food stamps, aid to dependent children, and unemployment _compensation, rank high because of the nature of the service. However, services such as education, nutrition, counseling, and employment, are scarcely Visible. Black-oriented Agencies One reason why Mexican—Americans feel generally neglected by agencies, is their belief that many of the agencies cater specifically to the Black population of 97 Joe's Corner. In essence, Mexican—Americans view these as "Black—oriented" agencies. The feelings of the Mexican— American community toward "Black—oriented" agencies can best be described as a mixture of confusion, lack of understand— ing, and in some cases, envy. However, it is necessary to point out that these attitudes are not so much the indivi- dual community members' attitudes, as much as the attitudes expressed by the community's leadership. The Mexican-American leadership views itself as being in competition with the Black leadership for a "fair share" of the federal dollar. Community leaders feel that the more money they are able to secure for their respective communities, then the better they look to their constitu— ents, and, more services can supposedly be delivered to the community. Since the Black leadership in Joe's Corner has been more adept at justifying and attracting more federal aid, the Mexican-American leadership has become somewhat resentful and envious. This envy is translated into con— fusion and a lack of understanding for the populations involved. In essence, the Mexican—American leadership in Joe's Corner is not always 100% indicative of the com— munity's sentiments, especially when it comes to the Black community. The investigator found that Mexican-American community leaders and some community people in general, felt that: 98 1) "Black-oriented" agencies and Black people in general, get everything they ask for in the form of social services and federal programs. 2) "Black—oriented" agenCies do not hire Mexican—Americans. 3) "Black-oriented" agencies do not concern themselves with the Mexican-American "barrio". 4) Black leaders do not involve themselves with the educational problems of Mexican-Americans. The investigator's opinion is that these negative attitudes are fostered primarily by the community leader— ship. An example of this is evidenced by the funding of El Centro Latino. .At the same time El Centro was being initially considered for funding as an "experimental" agency in October 1974, another agency—~the Opportunities Industrialization Center (OIC)——was also being considered "experimentally". It was obvious that El Centro was being backed by the Mexican-American leadership and the OIC by the Black leadership. It was not until both agencies had been approved and were operational that Mexican—American community leaders began to complain about the inequality of the two programs. El Centro Latino had received only $33,000, while the OIC had received $250,000. What these Mexican— American community leaders failed to recognize was their own program planning. Both agencies had received what their proposals had requested. The fact that El Centro 99 Latino received less than the OIC was a direct result of poor planning by Mexican—American community leaders, and not due to inequality at the hands of "Black-oriented" agencies. The negative attitudes towards "Black—oriented" agencies however, still remain. Perhaps the overall general reasons for those feelings were best exemplified by a measure of resentment within the Mexican—American community and its leadership. These feelings of resentment seemed to say: Black people always get what they want even though they riot and act in shameful ways. It should be the peaceful people who should receive all of the aid. Chicanos never cause anyone problems and they get ignored. (Investigator's interpretation of overall community sentiment.) El Centro Latino, Inc. The general attitudes of the Mexican-American community toward social and public welfare agencies in general, are of critical importance when assessing their attitudes towards their own agency, El Centro Latino. According to survey information and the investigator's personal assessment of the community, El Centro was initially viewed by most, as a very positive endeavor within the Mexican—American community. Community atti— tudes gradually changed, however, until at the time of its closing, it appeared as if only the agency's staff and the community leadership really cared. 100 In assessing the overall impact of community attitudes towards El Centro, it is necessary to examine them ~through the use of two criteria. These criteria are time and level of community interaction within the agency. Although the investigator feels that there perhaps are more variables involved, these two are the most important and also most easily accessible to study. In terms of time, El Centro Latino existed for eighteen months. These eighteen months can be broken down into three six month periods as follows: 1) first six months——a great amount of community support, 2) second six months——period of expansion, growth, problems, and community support begins to splinter, and, 3) third six months——community support has eroded, leadership is divided, no apparent solutions forseeable. During the first six months of operation it appeared that there was a lot of optimism in the community for the agency. The survey questionnaire used in part to study the community, asked respondents for input concerning the types of activities they wanted to see happen at El Centro. This input was generally of a very positive nature. Community residents expressed ideas such as educational and cultural programs, day-care activities, and fund-raising events. There was also a great amount of hope expressed 101 for E1 Centro's efforts in obtaining more employment oppor— tunities for community members. The second six—month period was characterized by growth at El Centro, and communication and credibility problems in the community. Many of these communication and credibility problems were a direct result of El Centro's management and expansion. In Figure 6, one can see the relative simple organization of El Centro‘s staff. Also of importance at this initial period in time, all staff employees were Mexican-Americans. Later, as evidenced in the organiza- tional structure presented in Figure 7, the agency appeared to be much more complicated. In addition to the organiza— tional complexity, the agency director had surrounded her— self with several key personnel who were non—Mexican— American. Although these employees were generally able people, they possessed no actual knowledge of and experience with Mexican—Americans. Consequently, some of the contacts which community members experienced with El Centro employees were of a negative nature. As previously stated, the investigator felt that Steiner herself was not Mexican-American. This feeling was later supported by one of Steiner's closest friends and former roommate. The former roommate told the investigator: 102 "Gloria is not Chicano. She never has been. Her mother is German and her father is Jewish. I answered the telephone when Rodriguez called to offer her the job. When she asked if Gloria Steiner—Mendez was home, I said "who?" Gloria asked me never to let on to anyone. She just really wanted the job." The fact that Steiner was not Mexican—American was never truly known in the community. However, her initial opposition to joining the Latin American Club and "going out into the community", as well as surrounding herself with several non-Mexican—American employees, tends to point to the assumption that she was not totally comfortable with Mexican—Americans. The community responded to this "stand-offish" behavior with distrust. Steiner's quickly—growing reputa- tion with men also hurt her politically and socially in the community. Among the three top community leaders previously described, Rodriguez argued with and "tolerated" her; Garza paid her very little attention; and Garcia despised her——a feeling which the investigator learned was mutual. As a consequence, it appears that Steiner alienated the three most active Mexican-American community leaders. This in turn, damaged the efforts of the entire thrust of El Centro Latino. The Mexican—American community began to interact less and less with the agency. The final six months in the life of El Centro Latino were characterized by 1) very little community 103 involvement at the agency; 2) dissatisfaction among employees; 3) dissention within the Board of Directors; and 4) the attempt by several "older" residents to start an alternative program. Community involvement at El Centro tapered off during its last six months of operation, to the point that agency—sponsored events were attended by agency personnel only. This produced an attempt by several com- Amunity members including Jane Garcia, to begin a rival organization. The Board of Directors, unhappy with Steiner's management of the training programs and hiring policies, found it more difficult to support the agency when it was criticized and attacked by the Manpower Office. The Board was also split as to whether Steiner should be fired and the training programs continued. Finally, two of El Centro's three Mexican—American employees left their jobs due to the lack of agency direc— tion and general dissatisfaction with the program. One employee went to Texas and the other simply quit. Although the investigator was not always present during the final three and one—half months of operation, he was constantly in contact with Steiner, Rodriguez, and agency employees. This final synopsis of El Centro Latino's existence is a compilation of their information. 104 Closing Statements The overall scope of social service and public welfare agencies in Joe's Corner has had a minimal impact on the Mexican-American community. The reasons are many and varied. However, some of the most important and perhaps obvious reasons are: l) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) the lack of heterogeneous leadership among Mexican—Americans in Joe's Corner, i.e., pro— grams cannot be continued to be totally operated by the present internal leadership; new leadership must be attracted from without the community; the unwillingness of agencies and county politicians to admit that problems exist within the Mexican—American community; the lack of commitment on the part of local .funding sources to provide some measure of economic stability to the Mexican—American community, thus, creating more dependency in the community; a general lack of understanding and sensitivity towards Mexican—Americans by local agencies; the failure of agencies, including those operated by Mexican-Americans, to recognize ineffective programs and remedies within the Mexican—American community; and, the inability of Mexican—American community leaders to overlook the programs of "Black— oriented" agencies, and perhaps strive to use them as models for handling federal monies. In brief, the failure of public social welfare agencies to meet the needs of the Mexican—American community can be attributed to a combination of political, economic, and social shortcomings on the parts of both the community 105 and the agencies which attempt to serve it. The community is not equipped to identify and research its own unique needs. This role ultimately belongs to the agencies. Also, community agencies assigned the tasks of meeting the needs within the Mexican—American community should be allowed the resources, freedom, and authority to accomplish these tasks. Agencies are limited by their very nature——that of bureaucratic organization and operation. Due to the agency's own structure and guidelines regulating it, intended functioning is not possible. Another perhaps critical point in the functioning of a community agency is the composition of its staff. Agency staff many times become dependent upon the agency for a livelihood, and at times become more concerned with the reporting of favorable statistics rather than treating the clients. Economic security for agency employees is also needed. Also, the ethnic composition of the agencies' staffs in Joe's Corner do not reflect a positive effort on the part of the agencies to hire more professional Mexican—American staff. This includes staff at El Centro Latino. When Mexican-Americans are hired within agencies, they are many times relegated to clerical jobs with very little community contact. Those who have community contact are expected to pacify the Mexican-American leadership and community, or satisfy the agency's affirmative action goals. 106 Finally, the Mexican—American community in Joe's Corner is one which needs a stronger economic base. The role of social service and public welfare agencies, however, is to provide social needs, and not economic needs. The stimulation and strengthening of the economic base of the Mexican—Americans in Joe's Corner needs immediate remedia- tion in order for social and public welfare agencies to succeed. Chapter IV THE EDUCATION OF MEXICAN-AMERICANS The Community Perspective Many Mexican—Americans today View "education" in the abstract, in very positive terms, while their concept of educational institutions (i.e. schools), is generally negative. Carter (1970) argues that these feelings may be very well grounded. Indeed this is the apparent situation in Joe's Corner. Mexican-Americans in Joe's Corner view education as a necessity, yet express negative feelings about their educational system and its attempts at trying to meet the needs of the Mexican—American community. However, before examining community attitudes in Joe's Corner, it is necessary to explore some of the historical basis for Mexican-American sentiment today. Acuna (1972), approaches the subject of education among Mexican—Americans from the viewpoint that Mexican— Americans are in essence a "colonized people". Acuna states: Education is important to a colonized people, since it can either be used as an instrument for creating awareness and thus motivating liberation movements, or it can be used as an agent of the colonial government and its economic system to 107 108 condition the oppressed to accept their status. Unfortunately, Anglo—American schools have tradi— tionally played the latter role, not only at the expense of the Mexican, but also in relation to other have-not peoples. Their primary role has not been to educate or to make the student aware, but to "school" children into accepting and sup— porting the Establishment. This process has been called Americanization. (Acuna, p. 146.) Acuna continues his assault on "Americanization", blaming it for a host of educational ills among Mexican- Americans. Acuna continues: At the very core of Americanization is the compelling necessity for Anglo—Americans to remake the unassimilable masses so they can be more acceptable. This is accomplished by erasing their culture, language, and values, and replacing them with Anglo—American culture, language, and values. It is a process that has caused considerable cultural conflict for the Chicano and that has resulted in the following: many Chicanos developing negative self— images; many Chicanos accepting the values of the colonizers and rejecting their own heritage; Anglo- Americans justifying the colonization by glorifying the history of the colonizer and erasing that of the colonized; and Chicanos being conditioned to accept their colonized status, limiting their aspirations, and training them to fill low—paying jobs. (Acuna, p. 146.) ' Acuna's position points out effects more than their causes, and seems to resemble the rhetoric used by Mexican— American community leaders not only in the Southwest, but in Joe's Corner as well. Acuna's argument lacks historical perspective in the sense that it offers no specific reasons for the conscious attempt at the assimilation of the Mexican—American. 109 Sanchez (1966), takes a somewhat differing posi— tion in that he views the Anglo-American attempt at acculturation and assimilation as a failure, thus producing the vast socioeconomic, educational, and health problems among Mexican-Americans today. Sanchez is able to provide a solid historical perspective while citing the many reasons for the Anglo—American failure. Sanchez writes: Until about the mid—nineteenth century, the Californios, the Nuevo Mexicanos, and the Texanos went their separate cultural ways, . . . The annexation of Texas and the occupation of the rest of the Southwest by the United States changed the course of human affairs in the region, but the change was a slow one, unplanned and haphazard. The United States had not developed the social and cultural institutions to carry out an effective program of acculturation among her new citizens. The new states and territories were left to shift for themselves, with an understandable lack of success. The Spanish-speaking peoples of the Southwest remained Spanish-speaking and culturally isolated-—unassimilated citizens, subject to the ever increasing dominance of a foreign culture. (Sanchez, p. 6.) Perhaps most important in Sanchez's argument at this point, is his mention of the undeveloped "social and cultural institutions" to insure acculturation. According to Meir and Rivera (1972), the Treaty of Guadalupe—Hidalgo of 1848, had guaranteed those Mexican citizens who wished to remain in the United States after the Mexican War, the protection for their religion, property, civil, and polit- ical liberties. Meier and Rivera continue: 110 Absent from the treaty, however, were provisions for protection of their social institutions. His— torically, the acculturation process for newcomers to the United States was facilitated by the American school system. Acculturation was not a goal in the early days of the American West; there frontier conditions and institutions, including schools, had not developed objectives of cultural assimilation. (Meier and Rivera, pp. 70-75.) The argument can thus be made that while it was legal and permissable to speak Spanish or adhere to one's own cultural traditions and customs in the Southwest, the same could not be done within a court of law or a classroom. The Anglo—American institutions were not equipped to handle Spanish-speaking citizens. In essence, the Mexican-American was left mute, not understanding, nor being able to make himself understood. Sanchez continues by stating: Other things being equal, time alone would have had its influence, and the Hispanos would have become full—fledged English—speaking Americans. However, not only were the social institutions inadequate, but also changing conditions made it impossible for time alone to bring about their assimilation. After 1870, the southwestern scene changed rapidly. The coming of the railroads brought new economic opportunities and made old ones more attractive. The region ceased to be the "Wild West." It became instead a land where minerals and lumber, cotton and corn, cattle and sheep, fruits and vegetables gave rise to new economic empires. These developments in themselves were not hind- rances to acculturation. On the contrary, they should have done much to aid it, just as economic expansion in the East accelerated the Americanization of the heterogeneous masses from Europe. However, in addition to the fact that southwestern developments were based largely in rural life and on the produc— tion of raw materials, in contrast to the urban» industrial situation in the East, this area was sparsely populated, and, insofar as the "American 111 Way" was concerned, culturally immature and insecure. Worst still, since labor for the new enterprises was not available in the East, the Southwest had to turn to Mexico and the Orient. As a consequence, the region, already suffering from cultural indigestion, added to its troubles by importing thousands of Mexican families, again postponing the day for the incorporation of its Spanish—speaking population. Even thus enlarged by immigrants from Mexico, the Indo-Hispanic group could have been assimilated had the United States taken time to assess the cultural issues and the increasingly complex socio— economic problems-—particularly those of this ethnic minority. But before 1910 almost no one seemed aware that there were far-reaching issues and problems. Virtually no thought was given to the educational, health, economic, or political rehabili— tation of the Hispanos. And after 1910 the oppor- tunity had passed. Until then the issues and problems were still of manageable proportions. They were soon to grow beyond all hope of quick solution. The Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920 and World War I combined to bring many thousands of Mexicans to the Southwest. Large numbers came as displaced persons, driven across the border by a chaotic civil war. Even larger numbers came as contract laborers, recruited by the trainload to work the beet fields of colorado, the gardens and groves of California, the railroads of the entire West, the copper mines of Arizona, the cotton fields of Texas, even the iron— works of Chicago and the coal mines of West Virginia. The consequences of this free dipping into the cheap labor reservoir of Mexico are not difficult to observe. What for brevity I choose to call "cultural indigestion" can be documented by health and educational statistics, by pictures of the slums of San Antonio, and by depressing socioeconomic data from all over the southwest. Suffice it to say that once again the Southwest pyramided problem upon problem, burdening itself with a situation for which sooner or later there would be a costly reconing. (Sanchez, pp. 6-7.) The positions presented by Acuna and Sanchez although differing, lead to only one apparent conclusion. That is that the status of Mexican—American education has been in a state of perpetual neglect, made difficult to e ;. f. 7.4 I . s (I v' {.0 root». i... a...H «Pia! 112 correct due to a host of historical, political, economic, social problems. The main concern here, however, is to examine these problems in the context of Joe's Corner, and attempt to analyze the way in which they interrelate to produce the specific educational conditions among Mexican- Americans in the target community. Although Joe's Corner is not within the Southwest, many of the patterns shaping the form of Mexican—American education there, have also been evident in this midwestern community. The apparent neglect in Mexican-American educa- tion in Joe's Corner can be observed in many ways. Among them are the statistics reflecting the educational level attained by the adult male and female population. Philip D. Ortego (1972), maintains that in the Southwest, the Mexican— American population has a limited and inadequate education. Ortego goes further by saying: The educational statistics on Mexican-Americans are shocking. Their dropout rate is more than two times the national average, and estimates of school years completed by Mexican—Americans (7.1 years), are significantly below figures for Black children (9.0 years) or Anglo children (12.1 years). In Texas, 39 per cent of the Mexican-Americans have less than a fifth-grade education, and Mexican—Americans twenty—five years of age or older have as little as 4.8 years of schooling. Almost half of the Chicanos in Texas essentially are still functional illiterates. (Ortego, p. 225.) The educational statistics among adult Mexican— Americans in Joe's Corner are not quite as low as those 113 presented by Ortego, however, they are still relatively low. Tables 8-11 show the educational level of adult males and females in Joe's Corner. As is seen in Table 8, adult males average only 8.0 years of formal education. Women, however, average a total of 9.2 years of formal education. (Table 9.) What is particularly interesting in Tables 8 and 9 is the apparent pattern of the number of years of formal education from zone to zone. Among males, it appears that a lesser amount of formal education is found in Zones I and IV, the "poverty" zones. Zones II and III tend to agree with the 1970 Census. These two zones show an average of 9.3 years of formal education among adult males. (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972, p. 19.) Women, on the other hand, appear to have attained a significant amount of formal education beyond that of their male counterparts. From Table 9, one can see that the amount of variance from zone to zone is not as great as it is for men, with the exception of Zone IV. Yet, education among women in Zone IV is still higher than it is for men of the same zone. Tables 10 and 11 offer a more detailed picture of the educational status among Mexican—American adults in Joe's Corner. Of a total of 307 adult males, 186 (60.5%), did not complete high school. Only 51 (16.6%), did 114 Table 8 EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF MEXICAN-AMERICAN MALES" Zone Total Years Number Average Years Number with Formal Subjects Formal College Education Responding Education Degrees I 1006 127 7.9 3 II 419 45 9.3 2 III 251 27 9.3 2 IV 315 47 6.7 0 V 134 15 8.9 1 VI 78 12 6.5 0 Totals 2203 , 273 8.0 8 *These figures represent the formal educational level of Mexican-American male heads of households. They do not include people identified as having college degrees, or people on which data was unknown. Zone 11 III IV VI Totals hold, EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF MEXICAN-AMERICAN FEMALES* Total Years Formal Education 1331 561 310 382 159 112 2855 *Female is defined here as the head of the house— or as the spouse of the head of the household. Table 9 Number Subjects Responding 137 58 32 52 16 13 308 115 Average Years Formal Education 9.7 9.6 9.6 7.3 9.9 8.6 9.2 Number with College Degrees These figures do not include people identified as having college degrees, or people on which data was unknown. 116 Awmm.omv me Hoogom Smflm DDOSDHE HmuOB AmcSchcs mcflcsaocflv pom mcflpcommmm coepmasmom HMHOB Awm.mv me.mv Hms.mv Hem.ch HWH.NV Ham.mv H H . N m H m asocxcb chficz lwm.mme Aws.eev Awe.ssv Ham.smv Hwo.omv HWH.mmV a HH He eH am am Hooeom emHmnaoz -1- --I wam.HV HWHa.mV Ammo.mv ste.mc . o o H N H m so:MHH>Hsem\.o.m.o Hwo.mmv st.HHv Ham.se Awm.mHv Ham.Hmv Ham.eHv m N a m mH Hm Hooeom emHm wam.mHv Hams.HHe Hame.ae Hamm.mHv Hwom.ch Ammo.sc m N m e s OH ommHHoo msom + .m.m Hwo.ov Haww.m Hwo.oc AWHH.mV Ammo.mv HWNH.NV o H. o . m H m HmemHe Ho .<.m IIIIlI|IIlIIlIIlIIlIIlllllllllllllllllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII H> wcoN > mcoN >H mcoN HHH mcoN HH mcoN H mcoN Ill|IlIlIlIIlI|llIlI|lI|IIIll|lIIlII|l||lI|IlIlIII|II|II|IIlllllllllllllllllllllllll II|III|III|I|III|IlIlI|l||l|ll|ll|IlI|IIll||lI|I|II|II|lIIlIlllllllllllllllllllllll mm9¢2 BQDQ¢ ZHD@m\.Q.m.O Hooeom emHm cmcHHoo oEow + .m.m HmanS Ho .<.m '11"""' H> OQON > ozoN >H OH.HON HHH OGON HH wCON H OQON 'l'l"|" MMH