Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston by Kinder Institute for Urban Research

SHARED PROSPECTS: HISPANICS AND THE FUTURE OF HOUSTON FINDINGS FROM THE HOUSTON SURVEYS (1994-2014)

“We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. What affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” Martin Luther King, Jr. (Letter from the Birmingham Jail, 1963)

November 2014 Kinder Institute for Urban Research Rice University, MS-208 6100 Main Street Houston, Texas 77005 Telephone: (713) 348-4132 http://kinder.rice.edu Authored by Stephen L. Klineberg, Principal Investigator Jie Wu, Research Project Manager Kiara Douds, Post-Baccalaureate Fellow Diane Ramirez, Summer Research Intern Contact us for more information at kinder@rice.edu Copyright © 2014 by Rice University’s Kinder Institute for Urban Research All rights reserved

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: A SOCIETY IN EPIC TRANSFORMATION ...................................................... 3 The Dramatic Growth of Houston’s Hispanic Population

Figure 1: Percent Anglo and Hispanic by Age Group in Harris County The New Economy

THE CHANGING COMPOSITION OF THE LATINO COMMUNITY ............................................ 6 The early years. The “Fourth Wave” The two-tiered immigration stream. Figure 2: Educational Attainment among Asian and Hispanic Immigrants in Harris County, Aged 25 or Older Harris County transformed.

Figure 3: The Demographic Changes in Harris County (1960-2010) The new sources of immigration.

Table 1: National Origins of the Foreign-Born Hispanics in Harris County (2000-2013) Differences by country of origin.

Figure 4: Educational Attainment by National Origin among Hispanic Immigrants, Aged 25 or Older Two Visions of the Future Deepening poverty. Upward mobility. The data.

Figure 5: Age Distributions among Five Groups of Respondents

MEASURING SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRESS ................................................................................. 14 The Pervasive Inequalities Table 2: Indicators of Socioeconomic Status in Three U.S.-Born Communities and among Hispanic Immigrants Changes over time in educational attainment. Figure 6: Changes in Educational Attainment over the Course of 21 Years among the Four Groups of Respondents, Aged 25 or Older The Hispanic health advantage. Immigrant Advancement in Economic Well-being Table 3a: Indicators of Socioeconomic Status among Hispanic Immigrants by Time in the United States

Table 3b: Indicators of Socioeconomic Status among U.S.-Born Hispanics by Generation The belief in the work ethic.

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

Figure 7: Perspectives on Poverty, Work, and Education in Three U.S.-Born Communities and among Hispanic Immigrants The stark realities.

Table 4: The Proportions of HISD High School Seniors Who Are “College Ready,” by Ethnicity

IMMIGRANT ASSIMILATION INTO THE AMERICAN MAINSTREAM .............................................. 23 Becoming “American” English fluency.

Figure 8: The Command of English among Hispanic Immigrants by Time in America Self-conceptions.

Figure 9: Hispanic and American Identity among Hispanic Immigrants by Time in the U.S. and among U.S.-Born Hispanics by Generation Multiethnic connections. Figure 10: Interethnic Relationships among Hispanic Immigrants by Time in the U.S. and among U.S.-Born Hispanics by Generation Beyond the Traditional Views Table 5: Indicators of Traditional Attitudes in Three U.S.-Born Communities and among the Hispanic Immigrants Figure 11: Women Who Are “Managing the House” and Not Working, among Hispanic Immigrants by Time in the U.S. and among U.S.-Born Hispanics by Generation Changes over Time in Area Residents’ Attitudes toward Immigration

Figure 12: The Changing Attitudes toward Immigrants in Harris County (2010-2014)

CONCLUSIONS: REALIZING THE MORE HOPEFUL FUTURE ............................................................. 29 APPENDIX A. THE SURVEY METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 31 APPENDIX B. SURVEY ITEMS AND REGRESSION ANALYSES ............................................................ 32 The Questions Included in the Analyses The Regression Tables (1994-2014) REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 38 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 41

2 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research

INTRODUCTION: A SOCIETY IN EPIC TRANSFORMATION An epic transformation is taking place across all of America and is particularly clear in the two most populous states, California and Texas.1,2 American demographer and immigration scholar Dowell Myers describes the transformation succinctly: “An earlier generation—predominantly white and now aging—is being replaced by a new generation comprising immigrants and their children, who are a mix of U.S.-born young of all ethnicities.”3 In Houston, the rising generations that will form the bulk of the region’s workers and taxpayers are largely Latino, and they are generally less well prepared to succeed in today’s knowledge-based, global economy. For the past 33 years, the Kinder Institute Houston Area Survey (KIHAS, 1982-2014) has been measuring systematically the economic and demographic trends in Harris County and recording the way area residents are responding to them. Since 1994, the surveys have been expanded to reach larger annual samples from the county’s major ethnic communities and have included questions about the respondents’ and their parents’ place of birth. In the past 21 years of surveys (1994-2014), the KIHAS has reached more than 4,800 U.S.-born Hispanics and 4,200 Latino immigrants.i The rich data from this research provide a rare opportunity to explore systematically the experiences and perspectives of the different Hispanic communities over time and to assess their prospects for the future.

The Dramatic Growth of Houston’s Hispanic Population Thirty years ago, Houston was essentially an Anglo-dominated biracial southern city. Today it is the single most ethnically diverse large

“An earlier generation - predominantly white and now aging - is being replaced by a new generation comprising immigrants and their children, who are a mix of U.S.-born young of all ethnicities.” -Dowell Myers

metropolitan region in the country.4 The transformation has been driven in large part by Hispanics: The U.S. Census found that the Hispanic share of the Harris County population grew from 6 percent in 1960 to more than 40 percent by 2010. Today, Harris County ranks second, just behind Los Angeles, in having the largest Hispanic population of any county in America, with a total of more than 1.7 million.5 The median age of all the Latino residents of Harris County is 27, compared to a median age of 42 for the Anglo population.6 More than half of all Harris County residents under the age of 20 are Hispanic. How the rising generation of Latinos will fare in the restructured economy of the twenty-first century will do much to determine the future of the Houston region as a whole. Nationally, 76 million Americans (primarily Anglos) were born between 1946 and 1964, during the period of broad-based economic prosperity following World War II. The leading edge of the baby boomers will be 68 in 2014. Each day over the course of the next two decades, about 10,000 Americans will turn 65.7 More than 786,000 Harris County residents are part of that baby boom generation. Figure 1 shows the percentages of Harris County Anglos and

The terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” are used interchangeably in this report to refer to persons of Latin-American or Spanish descent. The report uses the terms “Anglo” or “white” to refer to non-Hispanic persons of European descent and “African American” or “black” to refer to non-Hispanic persons of African background.

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

Hispanics in each of 12 successive age groups. The data give eloquent witness to the powerful relationship between ethnicity and age that underlies the impending demographic revolution.

time when trained intelligence has become more important than ever before in determining a person’s ability to find a job that will pay a living wage. Houston’s future will depend on the success these young people are able to achieve in today’s knowledge-based economy.

Among all area residents who are aged 75 or older, 61 percent are Anglo. In each younger age group, especially after the baby boomers, who were aged 50 to 68 in 2014, the percentage of non-Hispanic whites drops, while the percentage of Hispanics grows. The numbers of blacks and Asians (not shown in the figure) are largely unchanged across the age groups, with the African-American percentages ranging from 16 to 21 percent at the different ages, and Asians and others from 6 to 8 percent. Among all area residents aged 65 and older, just 19 percent are Hispanic, but Latinos comprise 51 percent of all the residents of the county who are under the age of 20.

The New Economy

In the years between 1880 and 1924, the last great “wave” of immigration brought some 26 million largely unskilled immigrants from southern and eastern Europe into this country.9 The nation in 1900 was at the beginnings of an 80-year period of vigorous industrial expansion that was producing a multiplicity of blue-collar jobs requiring few skills and offering many upward rungs on the ladder of mobility. The classic formula for successful immigration in those years envisioned three or four generations In the Houston Independent School District to climb the proverbial ladder, beginning with (HISD), the seventh largest school district in low-wage, entry-level jobs, then on to semithe nation, 62 percent of the 211,000 students skilled and skilled blue-collar work, and finally enrolled in the year 2013-2014 were Hispanic.8 into post-secondary education and mainstream This predominantly Latino younger generation America.10 “Peddler, plumber, professional” was will beofcoming into the workforce a the expected generational progression. 12 successive ageHouston groups. The data giveateloquent witness to the powerful relationship between11 ethnicity and age that underlies the impending demographic revolution.

FigureFigure 1: Percent AngloAnglo and Hispanic by Age in Harris County 1: Percent and Hispanic byGroup Age Group in Harris County 80 Non-Hispanic Whites

70 60

40 30 20

61 54

Hispanics

43 41 31

32 24

10 0

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey five-year estimates. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008‐2012 American Community Survey 5‐year estimates.

Among all area residents who are aged 75 or older, 61 percent are Anglo. In each younger age

Kinderespecially Institute forafter Urban Research 4 Thegroup, the “baby boomers,” who were aged 50 to 68 in 2014, the percentage of

non-Hispanic whites drops, while the percentage of Hispanics grows. The numbers of blacks and Asians (not shown in the figure) are largely unchanged across the age groups, with the AfricanAmerican percentages ranging from 16 to 21 percent at the different ages, and Asians and others from 6 to 8 percent. Among all area residents aged 65 and older, just 19 percent are Hispanic, but

Today, as a result of advances in computers and robotics, intensifying worldwide competition, declining unionization, and government inaction, the well-paying, low-skill blue-collar jobs have been rapidly disappearing from America. The new economy instead is providing rich and expanding opportunities for those with high levels of technical skills. Workers without the requisite educational credentials are generally relegated to low-wage service jobs that offer few pathways out of poverty.12,13 The many intermediate opportunities that the “blue-collar path” in an expanding industrial economy once provided to unskilled immigrants and their children are largely unavailable today.14,15 Some form of education beyond high school is a virtual prerequisite for success in today’s economy: It is estimated that 60 percent of all jobs in Texas by 2018 will require at least a post-secondary certificate.16 Will Houston’s Hispanic citizens, many of whom are the U.S.born children of low-skilled immigrants, be able in one generation to move successfully into these kinds of jobs?

It is estimated that 60 percent of all jobs in Texas by 2018 will require at least a post-secondary certificate.

In the pages that follow, we address this question using the KIHAS data. The surveys have provided systematic measures over many years of area residents’ experiences, attitudes, and beliefs. After briefly exploring the historical context of Latino immigration, we draw on the findings from intensive interviews reaching large numbers of Hispanic respondents to assess the differences among immigrants by country of origin and by the length of time they have been living in America. In addition, we ask about the differences among U.S.-born Latinos by whether they are part of the second generation (those with at least one parent who was born outside the United States) or the third generation and beyond (with both parents born in America). In the conclusion, we consider the implications of these survey findings for Hispanics’ future and, inevitably, for Houston’s future as well. ■

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

THE CHANGING COMPOSITION OF THE LATINO COMMUNITY Hispanics were living in the Houston region long before the town was incorporated in 1836.17 Large-scale Latino migration did not begin in earnest until the 1970s, however, when the “new wave” of immigration, brought about by reform of the nation’s restrictive immigration laws in 1965, fueled the growth of a U.S. immigrant population that was to reach more than 40 million by the year 2011.18,19 The early years. In the Battle of San Jacinto that won the fight for Texas independence in 1836, soldiers of Mexican origin fought alongside Anglo troops. From Houston’s earliest days, Hispanics made major, if often underappreciated, contributions to the many different enterprises that built the city and its economy. They participated in the clearing of swampland along Buffalo Bayou,20,21 the construction of the national railway network, the growth of the oil field manufacturing industries, and the continual dredging of the Houston Ship Channel. In 1908, 2,000 Hispanics were living among the 115,000 residents of Harris County.22 The Mexican Revolution in 1910 prompted many more Mexicans to move north, seeking freedom, safety, and work. Most were confined to “Mexican

jobs” in a hostile and discriminatory environment fueled by nativist sentiments.23,24 When the World War II draft of working-age Americans resulted in a serious labor shortage, the country created the Bracero Program to bring Mexicans to America under temporary guest worker visas.25 The program was canceled in 1964, but the demand for low-skilled workers continued. Many Mexicans stayed in the country, and many others crossed the relatively unsecured border to take advantage of the continuing demand for their labor.26 In 1950, some 40,000 Mexican Americans were living and working among Houston’s 800,000 inhabitants.27

The “Fourth Wave” In 1965, Congress passed the Hart-Celler Act, which undid the nation’s highly restrictive immigration policies that had given explicit preference to Northern Europeans. The act established a new system of preferences based not on national origins but on family reunification, professional skills, and vulnerability to persecution. Its proponents did not expect the law to bring much change, either in

Figure 2: Educational Attainment among Asian and Hispanic Immigrants in Harris County, 25 or Older (KIHAS, Figure 2:Aged Educational Attainment among2010-2014) Asian and Hispanic Immigrants in Harris County, Aged 25 or Older (KIHAS, 2010-2014)

Less than H.S.

H.S. Diploma

College Degree

Post-graduate

Hispanic Immigrants (N=765)

Asian Immigrants (N=396)

0 10 20 30 40 PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS

Some College

5 2

Institute for Urban Research 6 The Kinder Figure 4: Educational Attainment by National Origin among Hispanic Immigrants in Harris County, Aged 25 or Older (KIHAS, 2005-2014)

100

the numbers of immigrants or in their composition, but the effects were dramatic. Soon after the act was passed, a new “fourth wave”ii of immigration began, leading to explosive growth among previously underrepresented groups, including more diversity in the U.S. Hispanic population.28,29 The two-tiered immigration stream. The new immigration wave that began in 1965 differs from all previous immigrant streams in American history, not only in its predominantly non-European origins, but also in its striking socioeconomic disparities. Africans and Asians gained access to the United States primarily by being “professionals of exceptional ability” (e.g., Nigerian doctors, Indian engineers), by having skills that were demonstrably needed and in short supply (such as Houston’s Filipino nurses), or by qualifying for refugee status (as was the case for the Vietnamese).

The new immigration is unprecedented in American history, not only in its predominantly non-European origins, but also in its striking socioeconomic disparities.

The only other pathway to legal migration – having a close relative in America – was not available to most of these immigrants, since Asians and Africans had been banned for virtually all of the twentieth century from coming to this country. Meanwhile, another much larger group (mostly Hispanic) was arriving as undocumented immigrants or through family reunification with very low levels of education relative to the rest of the American population. Figure 2 depicts the dramatic differences between these two immigrant streams, drawing on the most recent five years of KIHAS data. The surveys found that two-thirds (66 percent) of all Asian immigrants in Harris County who were aged 25 or older at the time of the interviews have college degrees, and more than a third have post-graduate credentials. In sharp contrast, 57 percent of the Hispanic immigrants have not completed high school, and only 7 percent have college degrees. In today’s economy, the opportunities that await these highly educated Asians are radically different from the jobs that are accessible to most Latinos. ii

The first-wave immigrants (1600-1820) were the early settlers, primarily from England. The second wave (1820-1880) consisted mostly of the Irish and Germans. The third wave (1880-1924) comprised 26 million immigrants coming from southern and eastern Europe. Then, after a hiatus of 40 years, came the fourth wave (1965-Present), made up largely of Asians and Latinos. Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

Harris County transformed. After the oil-boom to new births in this country.32 One in every four collapse in 1982, Harris County’s Anglo popunewborns across America is now Hispanic.33 In lation stopped growing and then declined, but 2012, the U.S. census reported that 38 percent the percent county grew by 17 percent overall during the of high Harris County’s Hispanic population was of the Hispanic immigrants have not completed school, and only 7 percent have 1980s and by another 21 and economy, 20 percentthe in opportunities the composed first-generation immigrants college degrees. In today’s that awaitofthese highly educated Asians and 62 ensuing two decades. Figure 3 shows thethat striking U.S.-born.34 are radically different from the jobs are accessiblepercent to mostwere Latinos. shifts that have occurred in the Harris County population during the past six decades. Table 1 documents the growth of Hispanic immiFigure 2: Educational Attainment among Asian and Hispanic Immigrants in Harris gration in Harris County between 2000 and 2013. County, Aged 25 or Older (KIHAS, 2010-2014) The proportions of Latinos in Harris County grew The population of Mexican-origin immigrants from 6 percent in 1960, to 10 percent in 1970, to increased since 2000, but their total share of the Less than H.S. H.S. Diploma Some College 16 percent in 1980, to 23 percent in 1990, to 33 foreign-born Hispanic population dropped from College Degree Post-graduate percent in 2000, and to 41 percent in 2010. The 73 percent to 66 percent by 2013. That decline latest census counted 33.3 million Hispanics over may well continue: The Pew Research Center Hispanic Immigrants the age of 18 living in the United States, represent-57 concluded from all 26 the available 10 evidence 5 2 that net (N=765) ing 14.2 percent of the entire U.S. adult populamigration from Mexico into the United States in tion.30 More than 9.8 million Hispanics resided in 2010 was essentially zero.35 Texas,31 and more than 1.7 million were living in Harris County. In contrast, Harris County’s Salvadoran populaAsian Immigrants (N=396) 4 9 21 32 34 tion increased by 60 percent during those 14 years, The new sources of immigration. After immigrato reach 13 percent of the county’s total foreigntion reform in 1965, the major source of Hispanic born Hispanic population in 2013. Immigration 10 of the 20 new30 40from other 50 60 70 80 countries 90 100 even growth in America was the0 arrival Central American grew OF RESPONDENTS immigrants. Today, that growth is primarily due PERCENT more rapidly – by 110 percent – raising their share

Figure 3: The Demographic Changes in Harris County (1960-2010) Figure 3: The Demographic Changes in Harris County (1960-2010) 4.5 4.0

POPULATION IN MILLIONS

3.5 3.0

Asians/Others

7.7%

Hispanics 6.7%

Blacks Anglos

4.1% 2.1%

2.5 2.0 1.5

0.8% 0.3%

1.0

6.0% 19.8%

0.5

73.9%

15.5% 9.9% 20.1% 69.2%

19.7% 62.7%

32.9%

40.8%

22.7% 19.1%

18.2%

18.4%

54.0%

42.1%

33.0%

0.0 1960 (1,243,158)

1970 (1,741,912)

1980 (2,409,547)

1990 (2,818,199)

2000 (3,400,578)

2010 (4,092,459)

Source: U.S. Census. Classifications based on Texas State Data Center conventions. Source: U.S. Census, Classifications based on Texas State Data Center conventions.

Harris County transformed. After the oil-boom collapse in 1982, Harris County’s Anglo population stopped growing and then declined, but the county grew by 17 percent overall during 8 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston 9

of the county’s total Hispanic foreign-born population from 7 to 11 percent. Immigration from Cuba and South America also grew, increasing its representation from 6 to 9 percent of the foreignborn Latino population in 2013.

shown in the table, with the exception of a slight overrepresentation of Mexican-origin respondents and an underrepresentation of those from the Central American countries.

Among the second generation of U.S.-born the 1980s and by another 21 and 20 percent in the ensuing two decades. Figure 3 shows the These trends have created a Hispanic community Hispanics, 80 percent said their mothers came striking shifts that have occurred in the Harris County population the14past six decades. in Harris County that differs from the Hispanic from Mexico; during and just percent were from immigrant populations in the United States as Central America, 4 percent from Cuba or South proportions Latinos in Harris 6 percent 1960, to 10 percent iniii1970, a The whole and from of those in other cities.County Unlike grew from America, and 2inpercent from elsewhere. These to 16 with percent in Cubans, 1980, toor23 percent in 1990, in 2000, andconfirm to 41 percent in 2010. Miami many New York City with to 33 percent survey data further the findings of other Thenumbers latest census counted 33.3 Hispanics over the age of studies, 18 living in the Unitedthat States, large of Puerto Ricans andmillion Dominicans, demographic which indicate immi30 representing 14.2 percent of the entire U.S. adult population. More than 9.8 million Hispanics fully 90 percent of all the Hispanic immigrants in gration to Houston from Central America is both 31 and more than 1.7either million Harris County. resided in Texas, Harris County today trace their origins to were living recent in and still rapidly growing,37,38 although the Mexico or to the countries of Central America.36 Mexican-origin Hispanics continue overwhelmThe new sources of immigration. After immigrationingly reform in 1965,Houston’s the majorLatino source of to dominate population. in America was the surveys, arrival of the new immigrants. Today, that growth is InHispanic the mostgrowth recent 10 years of Houston 32 new birthscolumn in this of country. every four by newborns America now asprimarily shown indue thetoright-hand Table 1, One inDifferences countryacross of origin. Even isamong 33 70Hispanic. percent of In the2012, foreign-born respon- that 38the predominantly Mexican-origin Hispanics the U.S.Hispanic census reported percent of Harris County’s Hispanic 34 dents indicated that they came Mexico; 19 immigrants in Harris County, it iswere important to ask about population was composed offrom first-generation and 62 percent U.S.-born. percent were from El Salvador and other Central differences among Latinos by country of origin. American countries; 8the percent came from Cubaimmigration The in communities havebetween come to2000 America Table 1 documents growth of Hispanic Harris County and from and South America, and 3 percent were from different cultural backgrounds, with contrasting 2013. The population of Mexican-origin immigrants increased since 2000, but their total share of Europe or elsewhere. The distributions disparate circumstances. the foreign-born Hispanic populationrecorded dropped from resources, 73 percentand to under 66 percent by 2013. That indecline the surveys are continue: close to the figures Center concluded from all the available evidence may well Thecensus Pew Research

that net migration from Mexico into the United States in 2010 was essentially zero.35

Table 1: National Origins of the Foreign-Born Latinos in Harris County (2000-2013)

Table 1: National Origins of the Foreign-Born Hispanics in Harris County (2000-2013) 2000 (U.S. Census)

2013 (ACS 1- year estimate)

Percent

Number

Percent

2005-2014 (KIHAS)*

Country of Origin

Number

Mexican

395,459

73%

507,232

66%

Percent 70%

Salvadoran

60,670

97,724

Other Central American

38,712

83,341

Cuba or South American

34,583

66,899

Other Latinos

11,150

12,350

Total Foreign Born Latinos

540,574

767,546

* These are unweighted distributions from the KIHAS. The percentages in the table might not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau. 2000, 2013. “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population: Harris County, T.X.”

In contrast, Harris County’s Salvadoran population increased by 60 percent during those 14 years, to reach 13 percent of the county’s total foreign-born Hispanic population in 2013. iii Among the 1,980 U.S.-born in the second generation, 87 (4 grew percent)even reported thatrapidly their mothers in the – Immigration from otherLatinos Central American countries more – bywere 110born percent United States and only their fathers were foreign-born; these respondents were not included in the analyses that traced the raising their share of the county’s total Hispanic foreign-born population from 7 to 11 percent. national origins of the second-generation Hispanics to their mothers’ country of origin. Immigration from Cuba and South America also grew, increasing its representation from 6 to 9 percent of the foreign-born Latino population in 2013. Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston 9 These trends have created a Hispanic community in Harris County that differs from the Hispanic immigrant populations in the United States as a whole and from those in other cities. Unlike Miami with many Cubans, or New York City with large numbers of Puerto Ricans and

Figure 4 shows the striking contrast in educaOther indices of socioeconomic status amplify the tional attainment by national origin among the contrasts. Whereas 36 percent of the MCA immiLatino immigrants aged 25 and older, as measured grants are working in low-paying production or during the past ten years of Houston surveys. manual jobs, just 11 percent of the CSAE immiThe newcomers from Mexico, El Salvador, and grants work in such jobs; 38 percent of them are in other countries in Central America (Guatemala, professional or managerial positions, compared to Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama) 9 percent of the MCA respondents. The differences have generally come without high school diploin the wages earned by those who are working and mas. Only 5 percent of the Mexican immigrants, not in school are equally stark: Fully 79 percent 5 percent of the Salvadorans and 10 percent of of the MCA immigrants report making no more the other Central American immigrants have than $35,000 a year, and 59 percent were earning Figure 2: Educational Attainment among Asian and Hispanic Immigrants Harris were making college degrees. In sharp contrast, almost half of less than $25,000; only 8inpercent County, Aged 25 or Older (KIHAS, 2010-2014) the immigrants from Cuba, South America and more than $50,000. Among the CSAE immiEurope have college degrees. grants, just 50 percent earned $35,000 or less, and 28 percent were making $50,000 or more. Only 52 Less than H.S. H.S. Diploma Some College The data depicted in Figure 4 clearly justify dividpercent of the MCA respondents said they own College Degree Post-graduate ing the Latino immigrants into two contrasting their homes, compared with 66 percent of CSAE groups: those who have come from Mexico and immigrants. In addition, 78 percent of the CSAE Hispanic Immigrants Central America (the MCA immigrants) and57 respondents have health insurance; this 26 10 5 2 was the (N=765) those from Cuba, South America, and Europe case for 56 percent of the MCA immigrants. (the CSAE immigrants). Whereas 63 percent of MCA immigrants aged 25 and older have less than It is important to acknowledge these differences a high school diploma, this is the case for only by country of origin, but it is equally important 10 percent of CSAE immigrants. Among CSAE to recognize that the educated Asian Immigrants (N=396) 4 9 21 32 34 immigrants from respondents, 45 percent have college degrees; this Cuba, South America, and Europe comprise just is considerably higher than the average for Harris 10 percent of the total Latino immigrant popuCounty as a whole, which is 29 percent.39 Only 5 lation in Harris County. The critical question 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 100 percent of MCA immigrants have graduated from for Houstonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future rests80with 90 the fates of the PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS college. 90 percent of all Hispanic immigrants and their

Figure 4: Educational Attainment by National Origin among Hispanic Immigrants in Harris County, Aged 25 or Older (KIHAS, 2005-2014) Figure 4: Educational Attainment by National Origin among Hispanic Immigrants in Harris County, Aged 25 or Older (KIHAS, 2005-2014) 100

Less than H.S.

90 80 PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS

H.S. Diploma

Some College

College Degree

50 40 30 20 10 0

Post-graduate

33 23

21 8

18 7

13 3

25 17

27 19

9 0

Latino immigrants Mexican immigrants Salvadoran immigrants Central American Cuban and South (N=944) (N=144) immigrants (N=123) American immigrants from elsewhere (N=40) (N=111)

10 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research

children, who have generally arrived into this knowledge-based economy from Mexico and Central America with very low levels of formal education.

Two Visions of the Future By 2030, just over 15 years from the time of this writing, the Anglo baby boomers across the country will have largely surrendered their economic role to a new generation.40 Today’s Latino immigrants and their children are heavily represented among the emerging populations who will be the American workers and citizens of the twenty-first century. Their achievements will be critical determinants of the nation’s success in the years ahead. Will today’s immigrants, having arrived in poverty with few skills and facing a more rigid occupational structure in the post-industrial American economy, be trapped in low-paying, low-skilled jobs that offer little chance for upward mobility? Or will they and their children, despite low levels of education, be able to work their way along the traditional path of upward mobility the longer they have been in this country? Dowell Myers describes two narratives that reflect the polarized views on these questions and depict what the future may hold.41

Upward mobility. A different narrative is beginning to gain traction as current trends and new evidence become more widely understood. The fourth wave of immigration has been underway for more than 40 years. The immigrants have now settled in, and we can assess the extent to which Latino immigrants, despite their educational deficits, are managing over time to work their way out of poverty, to gain proficiency in English, and to become increasingly assimilated into mainstream American society. The 21 years of surveys in Harris County can help to clarify whether or not the current immigrants are in fact becoming “Americanized” in ways that parallel the last great stream of immigration, when the same concerns were being expressed about the Italians, Greeks, Slavs, Jews, and Poles who came to America between 1880 and 1924.

The critical question for Houston’s future rests with the fates of the 90 percent of all Hispanic immigrants and their children who have arrived into this knowledge-based economy with very low levels of formal education.

Deepening poverty. Many Americans believe that the current immigration is producing a rapidly growing population of undereducated and unassimilable foreigners.42 They fear that the country is being swamped by a rising tide of immigrants it cannot absorb. They worry that the numbers in poverty will inevitably grow, placing ever-greater pressure on America’s overburdened taxpayers. They are convinced that English will soon lose its status as the national language. Do the data support the conclusion that Houston’s Latino community is moving into a future of deepening poverty, purposeful isolation from the American mainstream, and stalled socioeconomic progress?

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

Figure 5: Age Distributions among Five Groups of Respondents (KIHAS, 2010-2014) 70

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS

30-44 years old 45-59 years old

30 20

18-29 years old

60+ years old 28

27 25 26

30 31

25 14

0 U.S.-born Anglos (N=1,898, mean=49.70)

U.S.-born Blacks (N=1,690, mean=47.06)

Hispanic Immigrants (N=831, mean=42.18)

The data. Since 1994, the KIHAS has included “oversample interviews” to reach approximately 500 respondents per year from each of Harris County’s three largest racial/ethnic communities – African Americans, Anglos, and Hispanics.iv Bilingual supervisors and interviewers are assigned to the project at all times. Also beginning in 1994 and in subsequent years, the survey participants were asked about their place of birth and that of their parents. Over this 21-year period, intensive interviews, averaging more than 20 minutes apiece, were conducted with 4,829 U.S.-born Latinos and 4,291 Latino immigrants. At the same time, the interviews reached 8,423 U.S.-born African Americans and 8,769 U.S.-born Anglos.v After the interviews were completed, the final data files were weighted to provide more accurate and reliable estimates of the actual attitudes and experiences to be found within the Harris

2nd Generation Hispanics (N=563, mean=31.19)

3rd+ Generation Hispanics (N=691, mean=40.43)

County population as a whole. Unless otherwise indicated, the results presented in this report are based on the weighted data. Appendix A provides additional information about these and other aspects of the survey methodology. In the following pages, we draw on the rich information from the KIHAS to measure the extent to which the evidence points to deepening poverty and isolation or to economic advancement and cultural assimilation among the Latino immigrants by time spent in America and across generations among the U.S.-born Latinos. As indicated earlier, the latter were divided into two groups: the U.S.-born Latinos who reported that at least one of their parents was foreign-born (the second generation), and those who indicated that they and both of their parents were born in the United States (members of the third generation and beyond). The surveys reached 1,980 second-generation

The Kinder Institute’s report on Harris County’s Asian communities was released in 2012, presenting the findings from three focused surveys conducted in 1995, 2002, and 2011, which reached more than 500 Asians in each year. That report is available at http://kinder.rice.edu/reports. v

A full description of the survey methodology, a list of all the questionnaire items included in the 33 annual surveys, the distribution of responses to each of the questions, and the in-house published reports on this research are all available on the Kinder Institute Houston Area Survey’s website at http://kinder.rice.edu/has.

12 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston 1

and 2,826 third-generation (or later) Hispanics. Most of the results presented in this report stretch over time, sometimes looking back to just five years, other times aggregating all 21 annual surveys, always with an indication of whether responses to these questions have changed across the years. Figure 5 draws on the past five years of the Houston surveys to show the distributions by age among U.S.-born Anglos and African Americans, Latino immigrants, and the two generations of U.S.-born Hispanics. Note that the third generation of American-born Latinos are mostly the descendants of immigrants who settled here many years ago. In contrast, the second-generation Hispanics, by far the youngest of the five communities (58 percent are under the age of 30), are mainly the children of those who came to America in the mass immigration that began in 1970 and peaked in the early 1990s. Clearly, the first, second, and third generations of Latinos who participated in these surveys do not represent a linear progression over time within the same extended families. Nevertheless, it is instructive and important to ask if the U.S.-born Latinos whose parents were also born in the United States are doing any better financially or assimilating any more fully into the American mainstream than the Latinos who are the U.S.-born children of immigrant parents. In addition, Figure 5 confirms that the Hispanics as a group, both immigrant and U.S.-born, are considerably younger than either native-born African Americans or Anglos: Fully 61 percent of Latino immigrants and 72 percent of U.S.born Hispanics are under the age of 45. Only 47 percent of Harris-County African Americans were in these younger age groups, and just 38 percent of Anglos. More than a quarter of U.S.born Anglos and African Americans were over the age of 60, compared to a tenth of U.S.-born Latinos.

In the following analyses, we compare three groups of Latino immigrants based on the length of time they have been in the United States and two groups of U.S.-born Hispanics by whether they are part of the second or the third generation. Because the year when the survey was conducted, as well as the respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; age, gender, and education, may be associated with measures of socioeconomic status and of attitudes and beliefs, we performed a series of regression analyses to control for the separate impacts of these four additional factors in all of the comparisons presented below. The regressions allow us to determine whether the differences among the groups are actually due to the length of time they or their parents have spent in America rather than to one or more of these confounding factors. Appendix B presents the exact wording of the items we examined and the years when they were included in the surveys, along with the regression results for all of the analyses. The tables presented below indicate when the answers to the various questions are significantly associated with the background characteristics of the Latino respondents (the length of time spent in America for the Latino immigrants and the differences between the second and third generations among the U.S.-born Hispanics), after the effects of the survey year and the respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ages, levels of education, and gender have all been entered into the regressions. â&#x2013;

We draw on the rich survey data to ask if the evidence points to deepening poverty and isolation or to economic advancement and cultural assimilation, among Latino immigrants by time spent in America and across generations among U.S.-born Latinos.

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

MEASURING SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRESS The Pervasive Inequalities Table 2 draws on the past five years of the Houston surveys to compare U.S.-born Anglos and blacks with U.S.-born Hispanics and Hispanic immigrants on the most important measures of

socioeconomic status. The findings confirm the strikingly low levels of education, income, homeownership, and other indicators of general economic well-being among Hispanic immigrants as a group compared to the three U.S.-born communities. U.S.-born Latinos are doing better,

Table 2: Indicators of Socioeconomic Status in Three U.S.-Born Communities and among Hispanic Immigrants (KIHAS, 2010-2014) Question

Response Categories

U.S-born Anglos (N=1,934) 7% 20 34 26 14

U.S.-born Blacks (N=1,749) 20% 27 33 14 7

U.S.-born Hispanics (N=1,294) 24% 28 29 15 5

Hispanic Immigrants (N=854) 57% 26 10 5 2

1. Educational attainment (Age 25 and older)ab

Less than high school High school diploma Some college College degree Post-graduate

2. Working status:

Working full-/part-timeab Managing the housea

57% 9

49% 9

53% 11

62% 22

3. [If working and not in school]: What is your specific occupation?

Production/Laborerab Technical/Sales/Service Professional/Managera

16% 44 40

18% 52 30

22% 52 26

37% 52 11

4. [If working and not in school]: Personal salary in the past yearab

$25,000 or less $50,001 or more

17% 59

31% 31

36% 30

58% 11

5. Homeownershipab

Own home

79%

55%

61%

55%

6. Health insurance?ab

Has insurance

87%

77%

71%

59%

7. Self-rated healtha

Poor/Fair Good Very good/Excellent

18% 29 52

29% 29 41

17% 35 48

37% 28 35

8. How worried that you and your family will be the victim of a crime?ab

Not worried Somewhat worried Very worried

40% 42 18

41% 37 22

37% 38 26

23% 27 50

Indicates that the differences between the Hispanic immigrants and the U.S.-born Hispanics, presented in the two righthand columns, are statistically significant on this question, when age, gender, education, and year of survey are controlled in the regressions. The differences are significant in all of the comparisons included in this table. b Indicates that the respondents' answers on this question have changed over time (across the 21 years of the KIHAS interviews). See Appendix B for a full presentation of the time trends in the regression models. a

14 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research

closely resembling native-born blacks, but both groups are severely disadvantaged compared to U.S.-born Anglo residents of Harris County.

that educational attainment has been improving over the years for both Anglos and Hispanics, but less so among African Americans. Latino immigrants have shown the greatest advances over time with regard their high-school graduation rates. Despite those improvements, Latino immigrants continue to have by far the lowest rates of highschool completion, while Anglos remain far above the other three groups in their average levels of high-school and especially of college attainment.

As indicated in the table, 57 percent of all Hispanic immigrants aged 25 and older who participated in the past five years of the Houston surveys indicated that they did not have a highschool diploma. This was the case for 24 percent of U.S.-born Hispanics, 20 percent of U.S.-born African Americans, and 7 percent of Anglos. At the other end of the spectrum, only 7 percent of all Hispanic immigrants had college degrees or more, compared to 20 percent of U.S.-born Latinos, 21 percent of African Americans, and 40 percent of Anglos.

Table 2 also shows the intergroup differences in working status. With year of the survey, age, education, and gender controlled, Hispanic immigrants are somewhat more likely to be working full-time or part-time and much more likely to be at home managing the house, compared to U.S.-born Latinos. There are only slight differences in the proportion of respondents from the four groups who are employed (the percentages range from 49 to 62 percent). The groups differ importantly, however, in the kinds of jobs they are able to obtain and in the remuneration they receive.

Changes over time in educational attainment. The 21 years of the KIHAS interviews enable measurements of change over time. Figure 6 presents the rates of high-school graduation and of college completion among the four groups of respondents, all aged 25 or older, as recorded in each of four periods between 1994 and 2014. The data indicate

Figure 6: Changes in Educational Attainment over over the Course of 21 of Years amongamong the Four Figure 6: Changes in Educational Attainment the Course 21 Years theGroups of Respondents, Aged or Older (KIHAS, 1994-2014) Four Groups of 25 Respondents, Aged 25 or Older (KIHAS, 1994-2014) High-School Diploma

College Degree

100

90 40

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS

80 70

60 50

U.S.-born Anglos

U.S.-born blacks

U.S.-born Hispanics

20 10

Hispanic immigrants 0

Figure 7: Perspectives on Poverty, Work, and Education in Three U.S.-Born Communities and among Hispanic Immigrants (KIHAS, 1994-2014) 110

U.S‐born Anglos

U.S.‐born Blacks

100 90 80

86 78

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston U.S.‐born Hispanics Hispanic Immigrants

88 81

88 78

Low levels of education translate into low-skilled jobs that barely pay a living wage, require long hours, and provide few benefits. Table 2 indicates further that 37 percent of Latino immigrants who were employed were in production or manual-labor jobs, compared to 22 percent of U.S.-born Hispanics, 18 percent of blacks, and 16 percent of Anglos. Latino immigrants are providing much of the region’s construction and yard work; they occupy the low-skilled, low-paying niches in the service sector — in such jobs as cooking and washing dishes, taking care of children and the elderly, delivering pizzas, and cleaning buildings and homes. In contrast, 40 percent of all employed Anglos in Harris County are in professional or managerial positions, compared to just 11 percent of Hispanic immigrants, 26 percent of U.S.-born Hispanics, and 30 percent of African Americans. More than a fifth (21 percent) of the Hispanic immigrants who were working full- or part-time and were not in school reported earning no more than $15,000 per year. Fifty-eight percent reported salaries of less than $25,000. Only 36 percent of the U.S.-born Latinos were earning $25,000 or less, and 30 percent said they were making more than $50,000. The figures for U.S.-born Hispanics are (once again) quite similar to those reported by U.S.born blacks. American-born Latinos are earning far more than Latino immigrants, reflecting an important degree of upward mobility from the first generation, but they are also making considerably less than U.S.-born Anglos, 59 percent of whom had personal earnings of at least $50,000 a year. The 2010-2012 American Community Survey for Harris County confirms these disparities: Just 7 percent of Anglo adults aged 18 to 64 had incomes below the poverty line, compared to 21 percent of black and Hispanic adults. The disparities among the different groups of children are even greater: Only 9 percent of Anglo children were living in poverty, but this was the case for 35 percent of black children and 38 percent of Hispanic children. 43 Such large income inequalities translate into disparities in home ownership and in access to

16 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research

health care. More than three-fourths (79 percent) of Anglos in Harris County owned their homes; this was true for just 55 percent of blacks, 61 percent of U.S.-born Hispanics, and 55 percent of Latino immigrants. Almost nine out of ten Anglos (87 percent) said they had health insurance, as did 77 percent of blacks and 71 percent of U.S.-born Hispanics. Only 59 percent of Hispanic immigrants indicated that they had any type of health insurance. The gap in coverage is consequential: a recent study based on the KIHAS data found that having no health insurance, across all categories of education, income, ethnicity, gender, and age, is significantly associated with lower levels of self-reported health.44 Table 2 also indicates that 52 percent of Anglos rated their health as “very good” or “excellent,” compared to just 41 percent of blacks and 48 percent of U.S.-born Hispanics. Only one-third (35 percent) of Hispanic immigrants said that their current state of health was “very good” or “excellent.” Other research confirms that Hispanics generally report worse health than Anglos and blacks.45 The Hispanic health advantage. At the same time, however, the evidence points to a phenomenon known as the “Hispanic health paradox.” This refers to the consistent finding that, despite their economic disadvantages, the health outcomes of Hispanics in the United States today are equal to, or better than, those of non-Hispanic whites.46 The Houston Department of Health and Human Services, for example, found that Hispanic women, even though they generally do not receive adequate prenatal care, have birth outcomes that are slightly better than other population subgroups in terms of low birth weight and infant mortality.47 The 2010 infant mortality rate among all Hispanics in Harris County was 5.4 deaths per 1,000 births, compared with 6 deaths per 1,000 births among Anglos and 11 deaths per 1,000 births among blacks. Hispanics in Harris County also had much lower age-adjusted all-causes mortality rates (at 502.3 per 100,000 in 2011), compared to Anglos (772.9) and blacks (934.9).48

Moreover, of all Hispanics, Mexican Americans have particularly low mortality rates and appear to benefit the most from the health paradox.49 The reasons for the paradox are not entirely clear. Several hypotheses have been offered. The Hispanic immigrants’ relatively good health may be a reflection of the “healthy migrant effect”: Only healthy individuals are likely to undertake the difficult immigrant journey with its substantial physical demands.50 Latino culture itself may also have protective properties. Despite the effects of poverty, discrimination, and family separation, Hispanic immigrants generally develop strong ties in their communities and receive a great deal of emotional support in times of stress.51 In addition, they are more inclined than other groups to engage in healthy behaviors: Although more likely to be overweight, they are less likely to smoke52 and more likely to have jobs that require physical activity.53 These health advantages may be helping Latino immigrants to cope with the barriers they face and to work their way out of poverty the longer they are in this country. And yet, as indicated in Table 2, the surveys reveal that Hispanic immigrants are more likely than U.S.-born Latinos to report that their current state of health is only “fair” or “poor.” Part of the explanation for this disconnect may have to do with the immigrants’ much greater sense of overall vulnerability in Houston. The survey participants were asked how much they worried that they or a member of their family will be the victim of a crime. As shown in the table, 50 percent of all Latino immigrants said they were “very worried.” This was true for only 26 percent of U.S.-born Hispanics, 22 percent of African Americans, and 18 percent of Anglos. In addition, Mexican-origin adults have been found to be particularly likely to translate these kinds of anxieties into expressions of poor physical health.54

statistically controlled in the regression models, along with controls for age, education, gender, and health insurance coverage, the differences in self-reported health between Latino immigrants and U.S.-born Hispanics effectively disappear: There are no significant differences in self-reported health between immigrants and U.S.-born Latinos who express similar levels of concern that they or a member of their family will be the victim of a crime. More generally, the data presented in Table 2 are clear in indicating that, across virtually all measures of socioeconomic well-being – whether the comparisons have to do with education, occupational prestige, income, homeownership, health care coverage, self-reported personal health, or the fear of crime – U.S.-born Hispanics are substantially behind U.S.-born Anglos, and they report levels of socioeconomic status that are similar to those of U.S.-born African Americans. Other studies have reported similar patterns.55,56 The table also indicates that by far the most vulnerable of all the groups are the Latino immigrants. On every dimension of economic well-being, immigrants are considerably more disadvantaged than U.S.-born Hispanics. Is there evidence that, despite such obstacles, the Latino immigrants are nevertheless managing to work their way out of poverty and to improve their circumstances the longer they have been in this country, or do the educational disadvantages effectively prevent them from moving forward?

The table also indicates that by far the most vulnerable of all the groups are the Latino immigrants.

Further analyses of the survey findings support the conclusion that the Latino immigrants’ greater feelings of vulnerability may help explain their lower self-reported health status. When the respondents’ levels of concern about crime are Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

Immigrant Advancement in Economic Well-being Tables 3a and 3b compare the three groups of Latino immigrants and the two groups of U.S.-born Hispanics on these same measures of socioeconomic status, drawing on the past 10 years of the KIHAS. The immigrants were divided into those who had lived in the United States for fewer than 10 years, 10 to 19 years, and 20 years or longer at the time of the interviews. The U.S.-born Hispanics

were split into those who had at least one foreignborn parent (the second generation) and those who said they and both of their parents were born in this country (the third generation and beyond). Since education changes little after age 25, it is not surprising that Table 3a shows no progression across the three groups of immigrants in the proportions who have college degrees. More surprisingly, Table 3b indicates that there has been very little advance in educational attainment

Table Indicators of Socioeconomic Status among Hispanic Immigrants byinTime Table 3a: 3a: Indicators of Socioeconomic Status among Hispanic Immigrants by Time the United in the United States (KIHAS 2005-2014) States (KIHAS, 2005-2014) 0-9 years in U.S. (N=389)

10-19 years in U.S. (N=487)

20+ years in U.S. (N=776)

High school or lessab College degree or moreb

83% 8

85% 7

78% 8

2.Working status

Working full-/part-time Managing the housea

56% 27

62% 27

62% 21

3. [If working and not in school]: What is your specific occupation?

Production/Laborerab Technical/Sales/Service Professional/Managera

43% 52 5

32% 56 11

29% 57 15

4. [If working and not in school]: Personal salary in past year

$25,000 or lessab $25,001 or moreab

67% 33

64% 36

46% 54

5. Homeownershipa

Own home

28%

50%

71%

6. Health insurance? ab

Has insurance

52%

58%

64%

7. Self-rated health

Poor/Fair Good Very good/Excellent

23% 42 34

27% 37 36

37% 30 33

8. How worried that you and your family will be the victim of a crime?ab

Not worried Somewhat worried Very worried

20% 23 56

25% 20 54

19% 30 50

Question

Response Categories

1. Educational attainment (Ages 25 and older)

Rarely/Never 27% 26% 35% Fairly often/Very often 65 73 74 a Indicates that the differences among Hispanic immigrants by the length of time they have lived in the United States are statistically significant on this question, when age, gender, education, and the year the survey was conducted are all controlled in the regressions. b Indicates that the respondents' answers on this question have changed significantly over time (across the 21 years of the KIHAS interviews). See Appendix B for a full presentation of the time trends in the regression models. 9. How often are Hispanics discriminated against in Houston?ab

18 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research

between the second and third generations of U.S.born Hispanics, with 57 and 53 percent reporting that they have high-school diplomas or less than high school, while 16 to 19 percent have college degrees.vi The very small generational differences in socioeconomic status among the U.S.-born Latinos, as seen in Table 3b, stand in sharp contrast to the experience of the immigrants themselves. Table

3a gives unmistakable evidence of continuing improvements across a wide variety of socioeconomic indicators the longer the immigrants have been in this country. Despite no increase in their levels of education, the immigrants are getting better jobs and earning higher incomes as their length of time in America increases. They gradually move up from low-paying production and manual labor jobs, and they are increasingly likely to own their own homes.

Table 3b: Indicators of Socioeconomic Status among U.S.-born Hispanics by Generation Table 3b: Indicators of Socioeconomic Status among U.S.-born Hispanics by Generation Question

Response Categories

Second Generation (N=1,226)

Third Generation and Beyond (N=1,708)

1. Educational attainment (Ages 25 and older)

High school or lessb College degree or moreab

57% 16

53% 19

2.Working status

Working full-/part-timeab Managing the house

48% 14

55% 13

3. [If working and not in school]: What is your specific occupation?

Production/Laborer Technical/Sales/Service Professional/Manager

22% 55 24

20% 49 31

4. [If working and not in school]: Personal salary in past year

$25,000 or lessb $50,001 or moreb

40% 25

30% 32

5. Homeownershipa

Own home

68%

64%

6. Health insurance?ab

Has insurance

67%

77%

7. Self-rated health

Poor/Fair Good Very good/Excellent

21% 30 49

20% 35 45

8. How worried that you and your family will be the victim of a crime?b

Not worried Somewhat worried Very worried

33% 36 30

31% 41 28

9. How often are Hispanics discriminated against in Houstonb

Rarely/Never Fairly often/Very often

29% 71

27% 73

Indicates that the differences between the second and third generations of Hispanics are statistically significant on this question, when age, gender, education, and year of survey were controlled in the regressions. b Indicates that the respondents' answers on this question have changed over time (across the 21 years of the KIHAS interviews). See Appendix B for a full presentation of the time trends in the regression models. a

Although the differences in education between the two generations of U.S.-born Latinos reached the .05 level of significance in the regression analysis, with age and gender controlled, the differences were small indeed. The predicted value on the nine-point scale measuring educational attainment was only 0.173 points higher for the third generation than for the second generation. Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

The length of time that the immigrants have spent in America is associated with higher personal incomes. Table 3a indicates that the percentage earning no more than $25,000 decreases from 67 percent among the immigrants who were interviewed in the past 10 years and had been in America for nine years or less to just 46 percent for those who had been here 20 years or longer. Table 3b indicates, once again, that the differences between the two generations of U.S.-born Latinos in their levels of personal income are not significant, when age, gender, education, and year of survey are controlled. Having health insurance increases both among the Latino immigrants by time in the United States, and among the U.S.-born Latinos by generation, but self-reported health status is generally stable for both groups. In a separate analysis, the surveys also show that the female Latino immigrants, perhaps because they feel more vulnerable than men, report being in worse physical health than males, when age, education, health insurance coverage, and time in the United States are all statistically controlled.57 The lack of substantial differences between the two generations of U.S.-born Hispanics on most of these measures of economic well-being (Table 3b) and their similarity to African Americans in Houston (Table 2) suggest that the structural barriers that limit blacks’ prospects for success are also working against Hispanics. Living in areas of concentrated poverty and coping with the blocked opportunities that result from educational deficits and the stress of perceived discrimination make further advancement difficult for both groups.58 The lack of substantial differences between the two generations of U.S.-born Hispanics on most of these measures of economic well-being and their similarity to African Americans in Houston suggest that the structural barriers that limit blacks’ prospects for success are also working against Hispanics. 20 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research

Table 3a points to additional vulnerabilities that make everyday life even more difficult for the Latino immigrants. Among the most recent immigrants, only 65 percent said that Hispanics are often discriminated against in Houston. The numbers perceiving anti-Hispanic discrimination increased to 73 percent among the immigrants who have been here for 10 years or longer. Moreover, 56 and 54 percent of the immigrants who have been in this country for fewer than 20 years said they were “very worried” about being the victim of a crime; that fear decreases only slightly (to 50 percent) among those who have lived longer in this country. In addition to their great socioeconomic disadvantages, the Latino immigrants’ continuing encounters with discrimination and their stronger feelings of vulnerability compared to U.S.-born Latinos may well further diminish their sense of well-being and their confidence in the future. The belief in the work ethic. Despite the educational deficits and the additional insecurities they experience, the evidence clearly shows that the Hispanic immigrants have generally been able, through sheer hard work, to make their way out of poverty and to move several rungs up the occupational and income ladders the longer they have lived in America. Three additional questions, shown in Figure 7, add to this picture of resilience. Latino immigrants are much less likely (at 59 percent) than any of the three U.S.-born groups (in percentages of 70 to 78 percent) to agree with the suggestion that “most poor people in the U.S. today are poor because of circumstances they can’t control.” They are significantly more likely to assert instead that, if people are poor in America, it is “because they don’t work hard enough.” Figure 7 indicates further that Hispanic immigrants (at 92 percent) are even more inclined than any of the U.S.-born communities to agree that “If you work hard in this city, eventually you will succeed.”

Moreover, 88 percent of Hispanic immigrants concurred with the statement that “For a person to be successful in today’s world, it is necessary to get an education beyond high school”; just 11 percent believed instead that “there are many ways to succeed with no more than a high-school diploma.” On the same question, 72 percent of U.S.-born Latinos, compared to only 63 percent of Anglos, affirmed the critical importance of education beyond high school.59 If Houston’s Latino immigrants and their children are not getting the education they need in order to succeed in today’s economy, it is demonstrably not because they do not value education or recognize its importance.

If Houston’s Latino immigrants and their children are not getting the education they need in order to succeed in today’s economy, it is demonstrably not because they do not value education or recognize its importance.

Structural barriers, especially factors associated with concentrated poverty, such as low levels of human and social capital, are far more likely than individual failings to be responsible for the stalled progress. The findings from these surveys strongly suggest that, if the obstacles due to poverty and segregation can be reduced, these immigrants and their U.S.-born children are ready to work hard and to take full advantage of new opportunities.

The stark realities. We have seen that Hispanic immigrants are even more likely than other area residents to assert the importance of education, to believe that success is due to individual effort, and to be convinced that hard work will eventually be rewarded. We find no evidence to support the view that these Houstonians are in any way antagonistic to American values.

Latino immigrants are doing better the longer they are in this country, making more money

Figure 7: Perspectives on Poverty, Work, and Education in ThreeCommunities U.S.-Born Communities Figure 7: Perspectives on Poverty, Work, and Education in Three U.S.-Born and among and among Hispanic Immigrants (KIHAS, 1994-2014) Hispanic Immigrants (KIHAS, 1994-2014) U.S-born Anglos

U.S.-born Blacks

100 86

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS

80 70 60

78 70

U.S.-born Hispanics 88

Hispanic Immigrants

50 40 30 20 10 0 Most poor people are poor because of circumstances they can't control. (Ns=3600/3475/2014/1807)

If you work hard in this city, eventually you will succeed. (Ns=4377/4143/2359/2192)

For a person to be successful in today’s world, is it necessary to get an education beyond high school. (Ns=309/201/147/207)

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

Table 4: The Proportions of HISD High School Seniors Who Are “College Ready,” By Ethnicity SAT/ACT Scores by Ethnicity (HISD Class of 2011)

to post-secondary education. Table 4 presents some particularly devastating statistics, showing the percent of HISD high-school seniors from Houston’s four major ethnic communities who were able to meet the criterion of “college readiness” on the SAT or ACT tests in 2011.

at better jobs, and U.S.-born Latinos are doing much better than first-generation immigrants as a whole. But advancement stalls after this point. The third generation of Hispanics are not obtaining substantially more education, finding better jobs, or making more money than those in the second generation. The U.S.-born Latinos as a group remain far behind Houston’s Anglos and even slightly behind African Americans.

Only 6.5 percent of all African-American seniors in HISD (8.1 percent of those who took the tests) and just 6.4 percent of all Hispanic seniors (9.8 percent of the much smaller number of test-takers) scored at or above the level that indicates college readiness on the SAT or ACT, compared to more than 60 percent of Anglo and Asian students.63 No wonder that, among all Latinos and African Americans who manage to go on to the Houston Community College System after high school - in the hope of acquiring the credentials to qualify for the better-paid “middle skills” jobs, such as welders or health technicians - more than half find themselves in remedial courses that repeat material they should have learned in high school and for which they receive no college credit.64 It is not surprising that many become discouraged and drop out before receiving any certificate or degree that will enable them to move forward. ■

The reasons for that stalled progress are likely to be found primarily in the stark external disadvantages experienced by so many Latinos in Houston. Hispanic children are typically concentrated in overcrowded, underfunded, innercity schools with inadequate resources.60 The high-poverty, predominantly minority schools in Houston have been shown consistently to be of lower quality on a number of important dimensions that affect student achievement.61,62 In addition, many Hispanic children come from families with very low levels of income and education, and they receive too little support and encouragement from the wider community to help them to overcome the barriers and acquire the tools they need to be able to go on

Table 4: The of HISD High-School Seniors WhoWho Are Are “College Ready”, by Ethnicity Table 4: Proportions The Proportions of HISD High School Seniors “College Ready,” By Ethnicity SAT/ACT Scores by Ethnicity (HISD Class of 2011) Ethnicity

% At or Above Criterion*

% Tested

SAT Mean

ACT Mean

White

60.2

99.8

1134

25.0

Hispanic

9.8

64.6

866

18.0

Black

8.1

80.2

834

17.3

Asian

62.3

n/a

1157

26.3

*The criterion is 1110 on the SAT critical reading and mathematics combined and 24 on the ACT composite. The national averages for the class of 2011 were 1011 for the SAT and 21 for the ACT.65,66

Source: HISD 2012-2013 Facts and Figures.

22 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research Figure 8: The Command of English among Hispanic Immigrants by Time in America (KIHAS, 2005-2014)

IMMIGRANT ASSIMILATION INTO THE AMERICAN MAINSTREAM We have seen that the longer Hispanic immigrants One powerful measure of fluency is the ability to have been in this country, the more their circumconduct an entire 20-minute telephone interview stances improve, despite low levels of education. in English. Figure 8 shows that only 20 percent If their progress is limited, the surveys indicate of the Latino immigrants who had lived in the The Proportions of HISD High School country Seniors Who Are “College that thisTable is not4:because the immigrants underfor fewer than 10 Ready,” years were prepared By Ethnicity value education or are unwilling to work hard. Is it to answer the survey questions in English, but then, as many believe, because they tend to remain the numbers rise to 25 percent among the immiSAT/ACT Scores by Ethnicity (HISD Class of 2011) in their “co-ethnic enclaves,” ensconced within grants who have been in America for 10 to 19 Houston’s growing Latino communities, speaking years, and to 40 percent among those who have Ethnicity % At or Above Criterion* % Tested SAT Mean ACT Mean only Spanish, and purposefully separating thembeen in this country for 20 years or longer. selves from the mainstream of American60.2 life? White 99.8 1134 25.0 In addition, the respondents who answered the Hispanic 866 18.0 9.8 64.6 survey in Spanish were asked how well they spoke Becoming “American” Black 8.1 80.2 834 17.3 English. As indicated in the figure, the propor62.3 n/a who said1157 26.3 English either tion they could speak English fluency.Asian Those who worry about the *The criterion is 1110 on the SAT critical reading and mathematics combined and 24 on the ACT composite. “fairly well” or “very well” grew from 22 percent implications of the new wave of immigration often The national averages for the class of 2011 were 1011 for the SAT and 21 for the ACT.65,66 for the immigrants who had been here for fewer argue that the Latino newcomers are especially than 10 years to 35 and 39 percent among those resistant to learning English and, unlike Source: HISD 2012-2013 Factsprevious and Figures. with longer residence in America. The fear that immigrant waves, have little interest in becoming English will soon lose its status as the national fully integrated into the “American mainstream.” language because so many Latino immigrants The findings from the Houston surveys make it are refusing to learn it is simply not supported by clear that such fears are unfounded. these findings.

8: The Command of among EnglishHispanic among Hispanic Immigrants in America Figure 8:Figure The Command of English Immigrants by Timeby in Time America (KIHAS, 2005-2014) (KIHAS, 2005-2014) 50

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS

0-9 years 10-19 years

30 20

20+ years

35 25

10 0 Completed interview in English. (Ns=365/454/720)

If interview was in Spanish: Respondent speaks English "fairly well" or "very well." (Ns=167/248/307)

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston 1

Self-conceptions. A second, even more powerful indicator of assimilation has to do with the respondents’ personal sense of identity: “Do you think of yourself as primarily Hispanic, equally Hispanic and American, or primarily American?” As indicated in Figure 9, almost eight in 10 (78 percent) of the immigrants who had been in this country for fewer than 10 years said they still thought of themselves as “primarily Hispanic”; the percentage drops to less than half (44 percent) among the longer term residents and to fewer than one in five in the third generation of U.S.-born Latinos. The proportion of Latinos who think of themselves either as “primarily American” or “equally Hispanic and American” steadily increases over time and by generation, rising from 22 percent for the Hispanic immigrants who have lived in this country for fewer than 10 years to 57 percent among those who have been in America for 20 years or longer, and to 83 percent in the third and later generations of U.S.-born Latinos.

Multiethnic connections. Is there any evidence that Hispanic immigrants are ensconced in their co-ethnic enclaves, deliberately remaining separate from other Houston communities? Or do they over time become woven into the fabric of American society, developing increasingly strong social ties to other Houstonians from different ethnic backgrounds? The Latino respondents were asked about their social networks, using the following question with regard to Anglos, blacks, and Asians: “Thinking about the people you consider to be your close personal friends, not just someone you know, do you have a close personal friend who is [one of the three other ethnicities]?”

As Figure 10 clearly illustrates, the diversity of Hispanics’ networks of close personal friends increases progressively over time and generation. Immigrants who had been in this country for fewer than 10 years at the time of the interviews reported close friendships with Anglos, blacks, and Asians at rates of 53 percent, 36 percent, and

Figure 9:9:Hispanic and American Identity among Hispanic Immigrants by Time by in the U.S. and Figure Hispanic and American Identity among Hispanic Immigrants Time among U.S.-Born Hispanics by Generation (KIHAS, 2005-2014) in the U.S. and among U.S.-Born Hispanics by Generation (KIHAS, 2005-2014) 100% 90%

4 12

80%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS

70%

37 45

60%

50% 40%

30%

Think of self as equally Hispanic and American.

20%

10%

Think of self as primarily American.

Think of self as primarily Hispanic.

0% 0-9 years (N=97)

10-19 years (N=102)

24 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research

20+ years (N=213)

2nd Generation (N=391)

3rd+ Generation (N=630)

Figure 10: Interethnic Relationships among Hispanic Immigrants by Time in the U.S. Figure 10: Interethnic Relationships among Hispanic Immigrants by Time ini the U.S. and among U.S.and among U.S.-Born Hispanics by Generation (KIHAS, 1994-2014) Born Hispanics by Generation (KIHAS, 1994-2014)vii 0-9 years

100

70 PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS

20+ years

10-19 years

2nd Generation

35 18

45 46

3rd+ Generation

30 15

10 0 Close Anglo friend (N=2,676)

Close Black friend (N=2,675)

Close Asian friend (N=2,184)

Has been in romantic relationship with a nonHispanic. (N=1,299)

18 percent, respectively. The proportions rose to 70 percent, 57 percent, and 35 percent among the longer-term immigrants, and to 85 percent, 83 percent, and 46 percent in the third and later generations of U.S.-born Hispanics. The Latino residents of Harris County show no signs of resistance to becoming fully integrated into the multiethnic community that is Houston today. Two additional questions substantiate this trend on a more personal level. Consistently over time and generation, as indicated in the figure, Hispanics are increasingly likely to report that they have been romantically involved with individuals who are not Hispanic. Furthermore, the percent who said they were married to a non-Hispanic spouse grew from 5 percent among the immigrants who were in this country for fewer than 10 years to 12 percent for those here for more than 20 years, and to 28 percent in the third generation. This is further compelling evidence that Latino immigrants are indeed becoming ever more fully embedded into Houston and American society the longer they have lived in this country. i vii

The Latino residents of Harris County show no signs of resistance to becoming fully integrated into the multiethnic community that is Houston today.

Data from all 21 years are combined for Figure 10 because regression analyses (shown in Appendix) revealed that

Data all 21 to years are questions combined for Figure because regression analyses in of Appendix B) revealed that the responses to the from responses these were not 10 significantly associated with(shown the year the survey. these questions were not significantly associated with the year of the survey.

10 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

Beyond the Traditional Views The survey participants were asked if they agreed or disagreed with two statements regarding the role of married women and mothers in society: “It is more important for a wife to help her husband’s career than to have one herself,” and “Preschool children are likely to have problems later in life if both of their parents work.” With regard to both statements, Table 5 indicates that the Latino immigrants were considerably more likely to endorse the “traditional” views than were any of the three U.S.-born groups: 42 percent of the immigrants agreed with the suggestion that a wife should help her husband’s career and forgo her own, and 66 percent agreed that preschool children are likely to suffer if both of their parents work. Note also that the U.S.-born Hispanics gave answers on these two questions that were virtually indistinguishable from those given by the U.S.-born Anglos and blacks. Though their

parents and/or grandparents may well have held more traditional views on these issues, the U.S.born Hispanics’ own positions have come to match those expressed by the U.S. population as a whole. These attitude differences have real-world manifestations. Figure 11 shows the percentage of Hispanic women in the Houston surveys who reported that they were “managing the house” and not working, among the groups distinguished by their length of time in America. Fully 53 percent of the female immigrants who have been in this country for fewer than 10 years are homemakers; this is the case for only 33 percent of those who have been here for 20 or more years. Regression analyses confirm that this trend is significant, even with controls for age, education, and survey year. Among the U.S.-born Latino women, the proportion of homemakers drops to about a quarter. This is evidence of a changing family dynamic that increasingly comes to mirror the dominant American pattern.

Table 5: Indicators of Traditional Attitudes in Three U.S.-Born Communities and among

Table 5: Indicators of Traditional Attitudes in Three U.S.-Born Communities and among Hispanic Hispanic Immigrants (KIHAS, 1994-2014) Immigrants (KIHAS, 1994-2014) Responses Categories

Question

U.S-born Anglos (N=8,769)

U.S.-born Blacks (N=8,423)

U.S.-born Hispanics (N=4,829)

Hispanic Immigrants (N=4,291)

1. It is more important for a wife to help her husband's career than to have one herself. a

Agree Disagree

21% 79

26% 74

42% 58

2. Preschool children are likely to have problems later in life if both of their parents work.a

Agree Disagree

37% 63

32% 68

39% 61

66% 34

3. It should be legal for a woman to obtain an abortion if she want to have one for any reason.a

Agree Disagree

57% 43

56% 44

52% 49

37% 63

4. Homosexual marriages should be given the same legal status as heterosexual marriages.ab

Agree Disagree

42% 58

34% 67

51% 49

42% 58

5. A book that most people disapprove of should be kept out of the public libraries. ab

Agree

Disagree

64 36

Indicates that the differences between Hispanic immigrants and U.S.-born Hispanics on all of these questions are statistically significant, when year of survey, age, gender, and education are controlled. It should be noted as well that there are no significant differences in any of these comparisons among the Latino immigrants by the length of time they have spent in America, nor among U.S.-born Latinos by second and third generations. b Answers on these two questions have changed over time, reflecting more accepting attitudes toward gay marriage (Question 4) and a stronger commitment to civil liberties (Question 5).

26 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston 1

Table 5 indicates further that Hispanic immiof should be kept out of the public librargrants express more conservative or traditional ies.” Only 36 percent of Hispanic immigrants attitudes with regard to abortion rights, whereas disagreed with this call to ban a disliked book, U.S.-born Hispanics (once again) hold views but all three of the U.S.-born communities were that are similar to those of U.S.-born Anglos much more emphatic: Fully 68 percent of U.S.Indicators Traditional Attitudes U.S.-Born Communities among as did and Table blacks.5:When asked of about the statement, “It in Three born Hispanics rejected thatand suggestion, Hispanic Immigrants (KIHAS, 1994-2014) should be legal for a woman to obtain an abor63 percent of blacks and 76 percent of Anglos. tion if she wants to have one for any reason,” agreement among the three U.S.-born commuU.S-born U.S.-born Hispanic Changes over Time U.S.-born in Area Residents’ Responses Anglos Blacks Hispanics Immigrants nities ranged from 52Question to 57 percent, but only 37 Attitudes toward Immigration Categories (N=8,769) (N=8,423) (N=4,829) (N=4,291) percent of Latino immigrants concurred with 1. It is more important for a wife to help her husband's Agree 21% 26% 26% 42% this strong endorsement of the “right to choose.” Part 79of the value surveys career than to have one herself. a Disagree 74 of the KIHAS 58 is that 74 identical questions are repeated over time, 2. Preschool different children are likely to haveis problems later in regard Agree 37% 32% 39% A somewhat pattern seen with providing an opportunity to measure66% systemlife if both of their parents work.a Disagree 63 68 34 61 to gay marriage. The table indicates that 42 atically any changes that may be occurring in percent of both U.S.-born and Hispanic 3. It should be legal for a woman toAnglos obtain an abortion if Agree 56% 37% 52% the 57% way successive representative samples of a she want to have one for any reason. Disagree 43 44 49 immigrants agreed that “marriages between Harris County residents perceive and 63 interpret homosexuals should be given the same legal the world they experience. The 4. Homosexual marriages should be given Agree 42% 34% 42%of area 51% attitudes statusthe same as legal heterosexual marriages. status as heterosexual marriages.a,b” U.S.-born Disagree 58 49 toward 58 residents from 67all ethnicities the new Hispanics were even more likely (by 51 percent) 5. A book that most people disapprove of should be kept Agree 24 37 32 64 to agree with this statement. U.S.-born blacks out of the public libraries. ab Disagree 76 36 63 68 (at 33 percent) were the least inclined to express a Indicates differences between Hispanic immigrants and U.S.-born Hispanics on all of these questions are statistically significant, when support for that gaythemarriage.

The attitudes of area residents toward the new immigration have generally grown less antagonistic in recent years.

year of survey, age, gender, and education are controlled. It should be noted as well that there are no significant differences in any of these comparisons among the Latino immigrants by the length of time they have spent in America, nor among U.S.-born Latinos by second and third generations. of immigrant assimilation is particThe evidence b these two questions over time, reflecting more accepting attitudes toward gay marriage (Question 4) and a stronger ularlyAnswers clearonwith regard tohave thechanged difficult question commitment to civil liberties (Question 5).

of tolerance for views with which one disagrees. The survey participants were asked about the statement: “A book that most people disapprove Figure 11: Women Who Are “Managing the House” and Not Working, among Hispanic Immigrants by “Managing Time in thethe U.S. and among U.S.-Born by Figure 11: Women Who Are House” and Not Working,Hispanics among Hispanic Immigrants Generation (KIHAS, 1994-2014) by Time in the U.S. and among U.S.-Born Hispanics by Generation (KIHAS, 1994-2014) Managing the House (N=4,369) 0-9 years

10-19 years

20+ years

2nd Generation

3rd+ Generation

23 0 10 20 30 PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston 11

immigration, particularly in their views of unauthorized immigrants, have generally grown less antagonistic in recent years. Three questions regarding immigration were included in the surveys conducted from 2010 through 2014. As indicated in Figure 12, area residents across the years express increasingly favorable feelings about undocumented immigrants and greater support for a pathway to citizenship, and they are more positive in their assessments of the contributions immigrants in general are making to the American economy.

Why the consistent change in attitudes? Is it because area residents have had several decades of experience with the contributions newcomers are making to the communities into which they move, or because the actual number of new immigrants coming to America has declined in recent years? We cannot say for sure, but whatever the reasons, concerns about the impact on Houston of the many immigrants in the region are clearly fading. The evidence of these changing attitudes would seem to bode well for the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s willingness to make the investments that might ensure more equal opportunities for all of Houstonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s immigrant communities.

Figure 12: The Changing Attitudes toward Immigrants in Harris County Figure 12:2010-2014) The Changing Attitudes toward Immigrants in Harris County (KIHAS, 2010-2014) (KIHAS, 100 90

High ratings (6-10) on a scale measuring feelings about undocumented immigrants.

Favor: "Granting illegal immigrants a path to legal citizenship, if they speak English and have no criminal record." 83

80 66

"Immigrants generally contribute more to the economy than they take."

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS

60 50 40 30

45 31

20 10 0 2010

2012

2014

28 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2010

2012

2014

CONCLUSIONS: REALIZING THE MORE HOPEFUL FUTURE History and policy have come together to turn Houston into a laboratory for the future of Texas and of America as a whole. Thirty years ago, this was a biracial, Anglo-dominated southern city. Today, the Houston area is the single most ethnically diverse major metropolitan region in the country. The transformation has been driven largely by Latinos: The Hispanic share of the Harris County population grew from 6 percent 1960 to 41 percent in 2010. Meanwhile, the resource-based industrial-era economy for which this region was so favorably positioned has receded into history, taking with it the traditional “blue collar path” to financial security. It has been replaced by a restructured economy in which education has become more important than ever before in determining a person’s ability to earn enough to support a family. How well are Latino residents in Harris County doing as they seek to make their way in today’s economy, and what does their experience portend for Houston’s future? The Latino immigrants who have come from Cuba, South America, and Europe are among the most highly educated immigrants in the city, but they constitute just 10 percent of Houston’s Latino immigrant population. The critical questions for Houston’s future rest with the fates of the 90 percent of all Hispanic immigrant families who have come from Mexico, El Salvador, and elsewhere in Central America; they have generally arrived here with great energy and optimism, but with very low levels of formal education. Are Hispanic immigrants, despite the educational deficits, managing to work their way out of poverty the longer they are in America? Do they recognize the importance of education? Are they becoming increasingly assimilated into American society? Or does the evidence support instead a narrative of continuing poverty, stalled progress, and deliberate isolation from the American mainstream? Across a variety of socioeconomic indi-

cators and attitudinal measures from the past 21 years of the Kinder Institute Houston Area Survey, we find evidence for both narratives, but more for the story of upward mobility than for deepening poverty. Even with low levels of education, Hispanic immigrants are managing over time to work their way out of poverty, to own their own homes, and to obtain health insurance for themselves and their families. The longer they live in this country, the more fluent they are in English, the more they think of themselves as American, and the more fully integrated they become into Houston’s multiethnic community. The surveys provide no support for the claim that Hispanic immigrants and their children are remaining ensconced within Houston’s Latino enclaves, speaking only Spanish, devaluing education, and purposefully resisting “cultural assimilation” into the American mainstream. In addition, U.S.-born Hispanics are doing much better than their immigrant counterparts on virtually all measures of economic well-being, and they express views regarding women’s roles, abortion rights, gay marriage, and civil liberties that are generally similar to those of the U.S.-born Anglos and blacks. All the evidence suggests that today’s Latino immigrants are becoming “Americanized” in ways that parallel the last great wave of immigration (1890-2014), when similar concerns were expressed about the newcomers from eastern and southern Europe. In terms of cultural absorption, then, the traditional story of immigrant assimilation is supported. U.S.-born Latinos have advanced much farther than first-generation immigrants in general, but progress stalls after this point. The third and later generations of Hispanics are not obtaining substantially more education or making more money in better jobs than the second generation. U.S.-born Hispanics as a group closely resemble native-born blacks on these measures of economic Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

well-being, suggesting that the two communities are facing many of the same structural barriers that hamper efforts to succeed in today’s economy. At a time when educational credentials are more important than ever before, Hispanic and African-American children are generally relegated to segregated, overcrowded, underfunded inner-city schools with too few resources. They often come from families with very low levels of education and income, and they receive too little support and encouragement from the wider Houston community. Whatever the combination of forces responsible for the slowing of generational progress, these are not obstacles that low-income families can readily overcome on their own. The evidence reviewed in these pages points to important strengths in the Hispanic community as a whole. Latino immigrants’ strong belief that hard work will be rewarded, their clear recognition of the importance of education, and their increasing integration into the wider Houston community, as well as the considerable advances made by U.S.-born Latinos compared to current immigrants – all the indications suggest that Houston’s Hispanics are ready to take advantage of any meaningful new opportunities that can help to overcome the barriers that now consign them to lives that offer little hope for a better future. More than half of all the young people (under age 20) in Harris County today are Hispanic

Across a variety of socioeconomic indicators and attitudinal measures, we find evidence for both immigration narratives, but more for the story of upward mobility than for deepening poverty.

30 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research

and another fifth are African-American. If the achievement gaps can be bridged effectively and soon, the Houston region will be well positioned to capitalize on having a young, multi-cultural and multi-lingual workforce, prepared to compete successfully in today’s global, knowledge-based economy. Many promising initiatives are underway in the Houston region to support the hopes and ambitions of these rising generations, but much more will be needed. The costs of making these investments will be high, but the costs of not making them will be much higher. As demographer Steve Murdock has shown in his compelling analyses of the challenges facing the state of Texas as a whole: “In the absence of improvements in the socioeconomic conditions of non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic Texans, the state will be poorer and less competitive overall.”67 Are the citizens and leaders of the broader Houston community prepared to undertake the sustained and committed efforts that will be needed to ensure that all of the area’s young people have full access to the tools they need to succeed in the new economy? The answer to that question will determine which of the two immigration narratives (upward mobility or deepening poverty) will ultimately describe the future of Houston. ■

APPENDIX A: THE SURVEY METHODOLOGY The sampling procedures and interviews over the 33 years of the Kinder Institute Houston Area Survey have been conducted annually during February and March by three different firms – Telesurveys Research Associates (1982-2004), the Survey Research Institute at the University of Houston (2005-2011), and Social Science Research Solutions (2012-Present). From 1982 through 2011, the respondents were drawn exclusively from Harris County. Beginning in 2012, the surveys are now reaching representative samples of residents from the entire nine-county greater Houston metropolitan region.

Response rates (the number of completed interviews in relation to all potentially eligible phone numbers) averaged 75 percent in the surveys conducted during the 1980s, but in this new era of “caller-I.D.s,” answering machines, and ubiquitous cell phones, the response rates have fallen to around 35 percent. Cooperation rates (the ratio of completions to interviews plus refusals) were for many years around 80 percent; they too have declined, to about 50 percent more recently. These are disconcerting trends, but the sample distributions of the KIHAS data justify continued confidence in their reliability.

In order to ensure that every adult with access to a telephone (either landline or cell phone) will have an equal probability of being interviewed, the survey respondents are selected through random digit dialing procedures. Each area resident aged 18 or older reached by cell phone is designated as the eligible respondent. In households reached by landline phones, the eligible respondent is selected randomly from all adult members in the household. Using “back translation” and the reconciliation of discrepancies, each year’s questionnaire is translated into Spanish and bilingual interviewers are assigned to the project at all times.

As with most cross-sectional surveys, the data from the KIHAS interviews are weighted each year to correct for nonresponse and coverage biases and to align the samples more closely with known population characteristics of the county, such as race/ethnicity, age, education, and gender. The population estimates, which serve as the foundation for the weighting process, are based on the figures from the American Community Survey (ACS) of the U.S. Census that were available when each year’s interviews were completed. The weighting procedures give added assurance that the final distributions are accurately reflecting the actual attitudes and experiences to be found within the Harris County population as a whole.

From 1994 through 2012, the surveys were expanded with “oversample” interviews in Houston’s three major ethnic communities. Using identical random-selection procedures and terminating after the first few questions if the respondent was not of the ethnic background required, additional interviews were conducted in each of these years to enlarge the samples of Anglo, African-American, and Hispanic respondents to about 500 each. In 2013 and 2014, the surveys reached larger basic samples originally, making it unnecessary to conduct additional oversample interviews in the two most recent years.

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

APPENDIX B: SURVEY ITEMS AND REGRESSION ANALYSES The Questions Included in the Analyses Below is the exact wording for each of the survey items used in the analyses presented in this report. If the item is included as a dependent variable in the regression analyses, the coding for that variable is also shown. The survey years when the questions were asked are indicated in parentheses. Indicators and Correlates of Socioeconomic Status. HIGHSCHL

What is the highest grade of school or year of college that you’ve completed? Coded into nine categories. 1: 9th grade or less; 2: 10th or 11th grade; 3: 12th grade, high-school diploma; 4: 1 year of college; 5: 2 or 3 years of college, Associate degree; 6: Bachelor’s degree (BA, BS); 7: some graduate level work; 8: Master’s degree (MA, MBA, MS); 9: Professional degree (MD, JD, PhD). Dummy variable created for those with at least a high school diploma (1) and those with less than a high school diploma (0). (94-14)

COLLEGE

What is the highest grade of school or year of college that you’ve completed? Coded into nine categories. 1: 9th grade or less; 2: 10th or 11th grade; 3: 12th grade, high-school diploma; 4: 1 year of college; 5: 2 or 3 years of college, Associate degree; 6: Bachelor’s degree (BA, BS); 7: some graduate level work; 8: Master’s degree (MA, MBA, MS); 9: Professional degree (MD, JD, PhD). Dummy variable created for those with at least a college degree (1) and those with less than a college degree (0). (94-14)

<=$25K

If R is working and not in school: Which of the following income categories includes the total salary you personally earned from all jobs during [the past year]? Please stop me when I reach the correct category. 1: less than $12,500; 2: $12,501 to $25,000; 3: $25,001 to $35,000; 4: $35,001 to $50,000; 5: $50,001 to $75,000; 6: more than $75,000. Dummy variable created for those making less than or equal to $25,000 (1) and those earning more than $25,000 (0). (94-95, 97-14)

>=$50K

If R is working and not in school: Which of the following income categories includes the total salary you personally earned from all jobs during [the past year]? Please stop me when I reach the correct category. 1: less than $12,500; 2: $12,501 to $25,000; 3: $25,001 to $35,000; 4: $35,001 to $50,000; 5: $50,001 to $75,000; 6: more than $75,000. Dummy variable created for those making more than or equal to $50,000 (1) and those earning less than $50,000 (0). (94-95, 97-14)

WORKING

Are you working full-time, part-time, going to school, managing the house, or something else? Coded into eight categories. Dummy variable created for those who are working (1) and those not working (0). (94-14)

ATHOME

Are you working full-time, part-time, going to school, managing the house, or something else? Coded into eight categories. Dummy variable created for those who are managing the house (1) and those not managing the house (0). (94-14)

OWNRENT

Do you own (1) or rent (0) the place where you live? (94, 95, 99, 01-14)

HAVINSUR

Do you and your family currently have any health insurance? Coded: 0 = No; 1 = Yes. (95, 99, 01, 03-12)

32 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research

PROFESSNL

If R is working full- or part-time: What type of work do you do? [If more than one job:] Please describe the one at which you work the most hours. [PROBE: What is your job called? What are your main activities on the job?] Open-ended. Dummy variable created for those in professional or managerial positions (1) and those in all other jobs (0). (94-14)

TECHSERVIC

If R is working full- or part-time: What type of work do you do? [If more than one job:] Please describe the one at which you work the most hours. [PROBE: What is your job called? What are your main activities on the job?] Open-ended. Dummy variable created for those in technical or service jobs (1) and those in all other jobs (0). (94-14)

PRODUCTION

If R is working full- or part-time: What type of work do you do? [If more than one job:] Please describe the one at which you work the most hours. [PROBE: What is your job called? What are your main activities on the job?] Open-ended. Dummy variable created for those in production and manual labor jobs (1) and those in all other jobs (0). (94-14)

HEALTH

In general, would you say that your overall state of health these days is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor? Coded: 1 = Poor; 2 = Fair; 3 = Good; 4 = Very good; 5 = Excellent. (01-14)

HISPDISC

How often, in general, are Hispanics discriminated against in Houston? Would you say: very often, fairly often, rarely, or never? Coded: 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Fairly often; 4 = Very often. (02-04, 06, 09)

CRIMFEAR

How worried are you personally that you or a member of your family will become the victim of a crime? Would you say you are: very worried, somewhat worried, not very worried, or not worried at all? Coded: 1 = Not worried at all; 2 = Not very worried; 3 = Somewhat worried; 4 = Very worried. (95, 97, 99, 01, 03, 05-14)

Measures of English Fluency, Personal Identity and Interethnic Friendships. ENGLISH

Language of the interview: English or Spanish. Coded: 0 = Spanish; 1 = English. (94-07, 09-14)

HISPSELF

If R is Hispanic: Do you think of yourself as primarily Hispanic, equally Hispanic and American, or primarily American? Dummy variable created for those who say “primarily Hispanic” (1) and for all other responses (0). (94, 95, 97, 01, 02, 07, 09, 11)

ANGFRND

Thinking about the people you consider to be your close personal friends, not just someone you know, do you have a close personal friend who is Anglo? Coded: 0 = No; 1 = Yes. (02, 04, 09, 11, 13, 14)

BLKFRND

Thinking about the people you consider to be your close personal friends, not just someone you know, do you have a close personal friend who is black? Coded: 0 = No; 1 = Yes. (02, 04, 09, 11, 13, 14)

ASIAFRND

Thinking about the people you consider to be your close personal friends, not just someone you know, do you have a close personal friend who is Asian? Coded: 0 = No; 1 = Yes. (02, 04, 11, 13, 14)

DATING

If R is Hispanic: Have you ever been in a romantic relationship with someone who was not Hispanic? Coded: 0 = No; 1 = Yes (07, 11, 14)

HISPSPOU

If R is married or in a domestic partnership: Is your spouse (domestic partner) Anglo, Black, Hispanic, Asian, or of some other (specify) ethnic background? [If R names more than one ethnicity:] Which ethnic group does (he/she) generally identify with?” Dummy variable created for those with an Hispanic spouse (1) and those with a non-Hispanic spouse (0). (03, 06, 08, 11, 14) Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

Assessments of Traditional Views. WIFESJOB

Agree/Disagree: It is more important for a wife to help her husband’s career than to have one herself. Coded: 0 = Disagree; 1 = Agree. (94, 96, 00, 02, 05)

GAYMARRY

Agree/Disagree: Marriages between homosexuals should be given the same legal status as heterosexual marriages. Coded: 0 = Disagree; 1 = Agree. (97, 99, 01, 03, 04, 07, 09, 11, 13)

BANBOOKS

Agree/Disagree: A book that most people disapprove of should be kept out of the public libraries. Coded: 0 = Disagree; 1 = Agree. (01, 08)

ONDEMAND

Agree/Disagree: It should be legal for a woman to obtain an abortion if she wants to have one for any reason. 0: Disagree; 1: Agree. (96, 98, 00, 02, 04, 06, 08, 10, 12, 14)

ATHOME

Females only: Are you working full-time, part-time, going to school, managing the house, or something else? Coded into eight categories. Dummy created for those who are managing the house (1) and for all other answers (0). (94-14)

CHLDPROB

Agree/Disagree: Preschool children are likely to have problems later in life if both of their parents work. Coded: 0 = Disagree; 1 = Agree. (95, 98, 00, 02, 05, 07, 09, 11, 13)

Attitudes toward Work and Education. WHYPOOR

Do you think that most poor people in the U.S. today are poor — [ROTATE:] because they don’t work hard enough; or: because of circumstances they can’t control? (94, 96, 99, 01, 03, 05, 07, 09, 11, 13)

WORKSUC1

Agree/Disagree: If you work hard in this city, eventually you will succeed. (95, 97, 99, 01, 03, 05, 07, 09, 11, 13)

NEEDCOLL

For a person to be successful in today’s world, is it necessary to get an education beyond high school, or are there many ways to succeed with no more than a high school diploma? (13)

The Regression Tables (1994-2014) We conducted a series of regressions on the 21 years of KIHAS data in order to ensure that the differences presented in this report were not due to the impact of extraneous factors, such as age, gender, education level, or the year when the survey was conducted. Three sets of regressions were performed. The first set (presented earlier in Tables 2 and 5) used a dummy variable contrasting the Hispanic immigrants with the U.S.-born Hispanics, along with controls for age, gender, education, and year of survey, to determine whether the Latino immigrants were in fact significantly different from the U.S.-born Hispanics on the measures we were exploring. The second set of regressions (in Table 3a) was conducted among the Hispanic immigrants and included a variable indicating the number of years the respondents had lived in the United States, along with the control variables. The third set of regressions (Table 3b), conducted among the U.S.-born Hispanics, used a dummy variable to distinguish the second from the third generation, along with the same controls. Depending on whether the dependent variable was nominal or ordinal, one of two types of regressions was performed: logistic (logit) or ordered logistic (ologit).

34 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

‐0.844*** (‐12.28) 0.0135*** (7.65) ‐0.104 (‐1.54) ‐ ‐ 0.0454*** (7.16) ‐3.544*** (‐21.29) 8655

0.503*** (8.13) ‐0.00259 (‐1.30) ‐1.285*** (‐22.54) 0.174*** (10.33) ‐0.0252*** (‐4.65) 1.011*** (6.83) 8340

WORKING 0.455*** (5.44) ‐0.00810*** (‐3.31) 2.558*** (21.90) ‐0.279*** (‐11.36) 0.00404 (0.58) ‐2.561*** (‐12.56) 8340

ATHOME ‐0.700*** (‐6.78) 0.0227*** (6.35) 0.273** (2.90) 0.495*** (16.73) 0.00647 (0.73) ‐4.192*** (‐16.13) 4733

PROFESSNL 0.501*** (5.06) ‐0.00173 (‐0.47) ‐2.354*** (‐20.65) ‐0.371*** (‐13.49) ‐0.0219* (‐2.43) 1.334*** (5.17) 4733

PRODUCTION

<=$25K 0.639*** (7.43) 0.0498*** (‐13.80) 1.126*** (13.50) ‐0.429*** (‐17.56) ‐0.0373*** (‐5.08) 3.348*** (15.75) 4720

>=$50K ‐1.077*** (‐7.93) 0.0617*** (13.66) ‐1.229*** (‐10.44) 0.503*** (14.58) 0.0962*** (9.24) ‐7.647*** (‐21.30) 4720

‐0.472*** (‐7.16) 0.0356*** (15.95) 0.197** (3.22) 0.204*** (11.25) 0.0193*** (3.30) ‐1.979*** (‐12.00) 7320

OWNHOME ‐0.646*** (‐8.38) 0.0232*** (9.31) 0.0250 (0.35) 0.320*** (14.15) 0.0310*** (3.95) ‐1.679*** (‐7.92) 5851

HEALTHINS

0.546*** (4.20) 0.00579 (1.27) ‐0.319** (‐2.69) ‐0.218*** (‐6.05) ‐0.0232 (‐1.53) ‐0.0152 (‐0.04) 1694

Hispanic Immigrant

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Constant

Survey year

Education

Female

Age

WIFESJOB

0.882*** (10.47) 0.00796** (2.84) ‐0.0965 (‐1.21) ‐0.168*** (‐7.39) ‐0.0147 (‐1.92) 0.265 (1.26) 3757

CHLDPROB 0.683** (3.27) 0.00842 (1.32) 0.0478 (0.25) ‐0.252*** (‐4.61) ‐0.185*** (‐6.18) 4.374*** (6.25) 877

BANBOOKS ‐0.722*** (‐8.02) 0.00383 (1.33) ‐0.119 (‐1.41) 0.135*** (5.68) ‐0.0139 (‐1.44) ‐0.147 (‐0.58) 3726

ONDEMAND

Odds Ratio (SE)

Logit

‐0.254** (‐2.96) ‐0.0300*** (‐10.42) 0.405*** (5.06) 0.0356 (1.54) 0.0205* (2.41) 0.222 (0.98) 3597

GAYMARRY

HEALTH

0.721*** (11.32) 0.00800*** (4.36) 0.221*** (3.88) ‐0.0948*** (‐6.00) ‐0.0431*** (‐8.03) ‐ ‐ 6513

CRIMFEAR

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston 1

‐0.234*** (‐3.81) ‐0.0227*** (‐11.91) ‐0.207*** (‐3.72) 0.203*** (12.46) 0.00780 (0.95) ‐ ‐ 6170

Ologit

Table 1b. Regression Models Evaluating Differences in Attitudes and SES Correlates between Immigrants and U.S.-Born Hispanics

Constant N

Survey year

Education

Female

Age

‐1.413*** (‐23.07) ‐0.0198*** (‐9.25) ‐0.118* (‐1.98) ‐ ‐ 0.0590*** (10.50) 0.292* (2.09) 8655

Hispanic Immigrant

COLLEGE

Odds Ratio (SE) HIGHSCHL

Logit

Table 1a. Regression Models Evaluating Differences in Socioeconomic Status between Immigrants and U.S.-Born Hispanics

36 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research PROFESSNL 0.0197** (2.65) 0.0152 (1.80) 0.449** (2.67) 0.580*** (14.13) ‐0.000685 (‐0.05) ‐5.177*** (‐11.39) 2196

PRODUCTION ‐0.0156* (‐2.10) 0.00570 (0.88) ‐2.442*** (‐16.88) ‐0.315*** (‐9.45) ‐0.0266* (‐2.13) 1.810*** (5.49) 2196

<=$25K 0.0558*** (‐7.05) ‐0.00134 (‐0.21) 1.459*** (11.00) ‐0.356*** (‐11.48) 0.0457*** (‐4.29) 3.014*** (10.67) 2252

OWNHOME HEALTHINS 0.0643*** 0.0301*** (10.16) (4.93) 0.0149** 0.00537 (3.28) (1.10) 0.381*** 0.156 (4.21) (1.51) 0.149*** 0.261*** (6.24) (9.07) 0.00880 0.0674*** (1.03) (5.80) ‐2.397*** ‐2.927*** (‐10.90) (‐10.25) 3317 2433

ANGFRND 0.0483*** (5.19) ‐0.0183* (‐2.37) ‐0.0554 (‐0.34) 0.404*** (8.05) 0.0216 (1.23) ‐1.082* (‐2.30) 1110

BLKFRND 0.0417*** (4.69) ‐0.0173* (‐2.42) ‐0.386* (‐2.50) 0.261*** (6.03) 0.0249 (1.48) ‐1.262** (‐2.88) 1110

Conducted only on female respondents.

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Constant

Survey year

Education

Female

Age

Years in the U.S.

ASIAFRND 0.0425*** (4.36) ‐0.0145 (‐1.75) 0.106 (0.60) 0.334*** (7.38) 0.00640 (0.35) ‐2.375*** (‐4.66) 1012

DATING 0.0689*** (4.54) ‐0.0655*** (‐4.11) ‐0.163 (‐0.60) 0.549*** (6.98) 0.00487 (0.11) ‐1.479 (‐1.13) 509

HISPSPOU ‐0.0506** (‐2.63) 0.0511* (2.09) ‐0.540 (‐1.44) ‐0.414*** (‐5.12) ‐0.0135 (‐0.27) 3.303* (2.38) 599

Logit ENGLISH 0.102*** (12.59) ‐0.0702*** (‐10.33) ‐0.269** (‐2.76) 0.496*** (17.95) 0.0119 (1.32) ‐1.571*** (‐7.02) 3924

ATHOMEi ‐0.0281*** (‐4.43) ‐0.00158 (‐0.30) ‐ ‐ ‐0.294*** (‐8.92) 0.00275 (0.25) 0.747** (2.76) 2076

HEALTH 0.000274 (0.06) ‐0.0219*** (‐5.28) ‐0.263** (‐3.14) 0.233*** (10.05) ‐0.00298 (‐0.25) ‐ ‐ 2653

CRIMFEAR ‐0.0184*** (‐3.88) 0.0205*** (4.50) 0.191* (2.13) ‐0.133*** (‐5.98) ‐0.0374*** (‐4.61) ‐ ‐ 2813

HISPDISC 0.0262** (3.17) ‐0.00499 (‐0.77) 0.0963 (0.72) ‐0.0733* (‐2.02) ‐0.105** (‐2.98) ‐ ‐ 970

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston 1

HISPSELF ‐0.0670*** (‐7.30) 0.0130 (1.74) 0.578*** (3.99) ‐0.285*** (‐7.84) ‐0.0745*** (‐5.37) 3.581*** (10.68) 1645

Odds Ratio (SE)

Ologit

Table 2b. Regression Models Evaluating Relationships, Personal Identity, and Life Experience by Time in U.S. among Hispanic Immigrants

Constant

Survey year

Education

Female

Age

Odds Ratio (SE) ATHOME ‐0.0219*** (‐3.57) ‐0.00359 (‐0.69) 2.999*** (16.78) ‐0.259*** (‐8.18) 0.0159 (1.57) ‐2.645*** (‐9.99) 3881

Years in the U.S. COLLEGE WORKING 0.00633 0.000851 (0.92) (0.17) 0.0106* ‐0.00373 (1.97) (‐0.83) ‐0.155 ‐1.816*** (‐1.42) (‐20.44) ‐ 0.0628** ‐ (2.71) 0.0443*** ‐0.00475 (4.43) (‐0.57) ‐4.335*** 1.655*** (‐17.04) (8.08) 4035 3881

HIGHSCHL 0.0262*** (5.81) ‐0.0375*** (‐9.60) ‐0.172* (‐2.34) ‐ ‐ 0.0621*** (8.67) ‐0.932*** (‐5.37) 4035

Logit

Table 2a. Regression Models Evaluating Socioeconomic Advance and Integration by Time in U.S. among Hispanic Immigrants

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

ATHOME ‐0.0280 (‐0.24) ‐0.00259 (‐0.85) 1.955*** (12.64) ‐0.278*** (‐7.16) ‐0.00433 (‐0.44) ‐2.005*** (‐5.89) 4423

PROFESSNL 0.124 (1.04) 0.0212*** (4.97) 0.178 (1.59) 0.428*** (10.25) 0.00800 (0.74) ‐4.040*** (‐12.18) 2526

PRODUCTION ‐0.0195 (‐0.13) 0.00125 (0.24) ‐2.138*** (‐12.02) ‐0.443*** (‐9.35) ‐0.0102 (‐0.77) 1.180** (2.86) 2526

<=$25K ‐0.180 (‐1.48) ‐0.0689*** (‐12.44) 0.987*** (8.37) ‐0.493*** (‐12.11) ‐0.0333** (‐3.22) 4.454*** (12.47) 2458

>$=50K OWNHOME ‐0.0173 ‐0.511*** (‐0.12) (‐5.50) 0.0724*** 0.0332*** (13.89) (11.51) ‐1.229*** 0.0405 (‐8.68) (0.47) 0.447*** 0.253*** (9.98) (8.82) 0.100*** 0.00150 (7.84) (0.17) ‐7.900*** ‐0.739** (‐16.72) (‐2.78) 2458 3969

HEALTHINS 0.301** (2.80) 0.0211*** (6.46) ‐0.142 (‐1.35) 0.357*** (9.84) ‐0.0266* (‐2.17) ‐0.626 (‐1.75) 3388

ENGLISH 0.805*** (5.75) ‐0.0110** (‐3.12) 0.0645 (0.48) 0.251*** (5.47) ‐0.0390** (‐3.24) 1.496*** (3.84) 4220

HISPSELF ‐0.472*** (‐3.44) ‐0.0145** (‐3.25) 0.101 (0.75) ‐0.139** (‐3.23) ‐0.0269* (‐2.55) 1.071** (3.08) 1841

ANGFRND 0.424* (2.29) 0.0170** (2.87) ‐0.133 (‐0.72) 0.283*** (4.87) ‐0.0236 (‐1.02) ‐0.0237 (‐0.03) 1363

2 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Constant N

Survey year

Education

Female

Age

Third generation

BLKFRND 0.617*** (3.71) ‐0.00630 (‐1.25) ‐0.0909 (‐0.54) 0.0847 (1.70) 0.00203 (0.09) 0.271 (0.43) 1363

ASIAFRND 0.0187 (0.11) 0.000227 (0.05) ‐0.113 (‐0.71) 0.198*** (3.95) 0.0181 (1.04) ‐1.346* (‐2.51) 999

Logit DATING 0.549** (2.66) ‐0.0180** (‐2.93) ‐0.508* (‐2.56) 0.184** (3.04) 0.113** (2.64) ‐3.569** (‐2.79) 722

Odds Ratio (SE) HISPSPOU ‐0.433 (‐1.82) 0.00334 (0.43) 0.480* (2.20) ‐0.246*** (‐3.53) 0.0139 (0.30) 2.013 (1.73) 704

ENGLISH 0.805*** (5.75) ‐0.0110** (‐3.12) 0.0645 (0.48) 0.251*** (5.47) ‐0.0390** (‐3.24) 1.496*** (3.84) 4220

HEALTH 0.137 (1.73) ‐0.0239*** (‐10.10) ‐0.170* (‐2.26) 0.168*** (7.25) 0.0208 (1.84) ‐ ‐ 3482

CRIMFEAR ‐0.123 (‐1.56) 0.00829*** (3.57) 0.240** (3.20) ‐0.0487* (‐2.12) ‐0.0468*** (‐6.39) ‐ ‐ 3673

Ologit HISPDISC ‐0.214 (‐1.59) 0.00190 (0.44) 0.0837 (0.66) ‐0.0856* (‐2.10) 0.0601* (2.46) ‐ ‐ 1222

Table 3b. Regression Models Evaluating Differences in Assimilation, Interethnic Relations, and Life Experiences between Secondand Third-Generation Hispanics

Constant N

Survey year

Education

Female

Age

Third generation

WORKING 0.401*** (4.95) ‐0.00665** (‐2.78) ‐0.820*** (‐10.52) 0.258*** (10.42) ‐0.0401*** (‐5.27) 0.371 (1.65) 4423

Odds Ratio (SE) COLLEGE 0.339*** (3.76) 0.0110*** (5.18) ‐0.0711 (‐0.83) ‐ ‐ 0.0469*** (5.54) ‐4.048*** (‐15.66) 4584

HIGHSCHL 0.0899 (0.88) ‐0.0178*** (‐5.79) ‐0.0392 (‐0.40) ‐ ‐ 0.0498*** (5.52) 0.258 (0.97) 4584

Logit

Table 3a. Regression Models Evaluating Differences in Socioeconomic Status between Second- and Third- Generation Hispanics

REFERENCES 1

Myers, Dowell. 2007. Immigrants and Boomers: Forging a

New Social Contract for the Future of America. Russell Sage

Other Half Works: Immigration and the Social Organization of Labor. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Foundation. 2

Murdock, Steve H., Michael E. Cline, Mary Zey, P. Wilner

Jeanty, and Deborah Perez. 2014. Changing Texas:

(http://www.completecollege.org/docs/Texas.pdf). 17

Myers, Dowell. 2007. Immigrants and Boomers: Forging a

Press. 18

Portrait of the 40 Million, Including 11 Million

Declines in Segregation. Kinder Institute for Urban

Unauthorized. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.

Research and Hobby Center for the Study of Texas, Rice

Retrieved October 2, 2013

University.

(http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2013/01/statistical_portr ait_final_jan_29.pdf).

Brown, Anna and Mark Hugo Lopez. 2013. Mapping the 20

Press.

(http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2013/08/latino_populations_in_ the_states_counties_and_cities_FINAL.pdf).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. “Median Age by Sex (White

Telesurveys of Texas, Inc. 1986. “Hispanics in Harris County.”

Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino).” “Median Age by Sex

(Hispanic or Latino).” 2008-2012 American Community

Survey. Prepared by Social Explorer.

De Leon, Arnoldo. 2001. Ethnicity in the Sunbelt: A History of Mexican Americans in Houston. Texas A&M University

D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved August 6, 2014

Pew Hispanic Center. 2013. A Nation of Immigrants: A

Grows More Racially/Ethnically Diverse,With Small

Latino Population, By State, County and City. Washington,

Telesurveys of Texas, Inc. 1986. “Hispanics in Harris County.”

Emerson, Michael O., Jenifer Bratter, Junia Howell, P. Wilner Jeanty, and Mike Cline. 2012. Houston Region

De Leon, Arnoldo. 2001. Ethnicity in the Sunbelt: A History

of Mexican Americans in Houston. Texas A&M University

New Social Contract for the Future of America. Russell Sage Foundation. Pages 4-5.

Complete College America. 2011. “Texas 2011.” Retrieved July 21, 2014

Implications of Addressing or Ignoring the Texas Challenge. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Waldinger, Roger and Michael I. Lichter. 2003. How the

Ibid. Kreneck, Thomas H. 2012. Del Pueblo: A History of Houston’s Hispanic Community. Texas A&M University

Pew Research Center. 2010. “Baby Boomers Retire.”

Press.

Retrieved July 21, 2014 (http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-

number/baby-boomers-retire/).

Ibid.

Payan, Tony. 2006. Three United States-Mexico Border

Houston Independent School District. 2014. “HISD at a

Wars. Westport, CN: Praeger Security International.

Glance.” (http://www.houstonisd.org/domain/7908).

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2013. “Table 1:

Ibid.

Kreneck, Thomas H. 2012. Del Pueblo: A History of

Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status:

Houston’s Hispanic Community. Texas A&M University

Fiscal Years 1820-2013.” Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 2013. 10

Press. 28

Suro, Roberto. 1999. Strangers among Us: Latinos’ Lives in a

Mexican and Central American Immigrants in the United

Changing America. New York: Vintage Books. 11

Ibid.

Levy, Frank. 1998. The New Dollars and Dreams: American

States. Washington, D.C.: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved October 1, 2013 (http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/

Incomes and Economic Change. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation. 13

mexcentamimmigrants.pdf). 29

Sassen, Saskia. 1994. Cities in a World Economy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Fernandez-Kelly, M. Patricia and Richard Schauffler. 1994. "Divided Fates: Immigrant Children in a Restructured U.S. Economy." International Migration Review 28, 4(108): 662689.

38 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research

Brick, Kate, A.E. Challinor, and Marc R. Rosenblum. 2011.

Palen, John. 2012. The Urban World. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Passel, Jeffrey. 2011. Census 2010: 50 Million Latinos. Hispanics Account for More than Half of Nation’s Growth in Past Decade. Washington, D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved October 3, 2013 (http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/140.pdf).

Brown, Anna and Mark Hugo Lopez. 2013. Mapping the

Latino Population, By State, County, and City. Washington,

Important U.S. Problem.” Gallup Politics. Retrieved August

(http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2013/08/

7, 2014 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/173306/

_FINAL.pdf).

one-six-say-immigration-important-problem.aspx). 43

Months by Sex by Age (White Alone, Not Hispanic or

Second Generation: Changing Patterns in Hispanic

Latino).” “Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Sex by

Population Growth. Washington, D.C.: Pew Hispanic

Age (Hispanic or Latino).” “Poverty Status in the Past 12

Center. Retrieved October 10, 2013

Months by Sex by Age (Black Alone).” 2010-2012 American Community Survey. Prepared by Social Explorer.

Pew Hispanic Center. 2009. Between Two Worlds: How

What Accounts for Health Disparities? Findings from the

Pew Research Center. Retrieved October 1, 2013

Houston Surveys (2001-2013). Kinder Institute for Urban

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. “Hispanic or Latino by Specific

Research. 45

2006. “Why Do Hispanics Report Poor Health?” Office of

2012 American Community Survey. Prepared by Social

Population Research Princeton University, Work Paper

Passel, Jeffrey, D’Vera Cohn and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera.

Series No. 2006-06. 46

Behavioral Factors Affecting Hispanic Health Outcomes.”

Perhaps Less. Washington, D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center.

Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved

(http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/23/net-migration-

13(4):477-503. 47

March 2008. “The City of Houston Health Disparities Data

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. “Hispanic or Latino by Specific

Report.” Retrieved October 3, 2014.

Social Explorer.

(http://www.houstontx.gov/health/disparity.pdf) 48

Rodriguez, Nestor. 2000. "Hispanic and Asian Immigration

February 2014. “Leading Causes of Death in Harris County, Texas.” Retrieved October 3, 2014.

Congregations, edited by Helen Rose Ebaugh and Janet

(http://www.hcphes.org/Pdfs/Death.pdf) 49

Epidemiologic Reviews 31: 99-112.

Hagan, Jacqueline M. and Nestor P. Rodriguez. 1992. "Recent Economic Restructuring and Evolving Intergroup

Thomson, Esme F., Amani Nuru-Jeter, Dawn Richardon,

Relations in Houston." Pages 145-177 in Structuring

Ferrah Raza, and Meredith Minkler. 2013. “The Hispanic

Diversity: Ethnographic Perspectives on the New

paradox and Older Adults’ Disabilities: Is There a Healthy

Immigration, edited by Louise Lamphere. Chicago:

Migrant Effect?” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 10:1786-1814.

University of Chicago Press.

Vega, William. A., Michael Rodriguez and Elisabeth Gruskin. 2009. Health Disparities in the Latino Population.

Saltzman Chafetz. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Harris County Public Health & Environmental Services.

Waves in Houston." Pages 29-42 in Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuities and Adaptations in Immigrant

Houston Department of Health and Human Services.

from-mexico-falls-to-zero-and-perhaps-less/). Origin.” 2012 American Community Survey. Prepared by 37

Morales L.S. et al. 2002. “Socioeconomic, Cultural, and

2012. Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero—and Retrieved February 10, 2014

Bzostek, Sharon, Noreen Goldman, and Anne R. Pebley.

Origin.” “Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population.” Explorer. 35

Klineberg, Stephen L., Jie Wu, and Cristina Barrera. 2014.

Young Latinos Come of Age in America. Washington, D.C. (http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/117.pdf). 34

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. “Poverty Status in the Past 12

Suro, Roberto, and Jeffrey S. Passel. 2003. The Rise of the

(http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/22.pdf). 33

Saad, Lydia. 2014. “One in Six Say Immigration Most

D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved August 11, 2014 latino_populations_in_the_states_counties_and_cities 32

Ibid.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. “Educational Attainment for

Lara, Marielena, Cristina Gamboa, M. Iya Kahramanian,

Population 25 and Over.” 2012 American Community

Leo S. Morales, and David E. Hayes Bautista. 2005.

Survey. Prepared by Social Explorer.

“Acculturation and Latino Health in the United States: A

Myers, Dowell. 2007. Immigrants and Boomers: Forging a

Review of the Literature and its Sociopolitical Context.”

New Social Contract for the Future of America. Russell Sage

Annual Review of Public Health 26:367-397.

Foundation.

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

Centers for Disease Control (CDC). 2002. “A Demographic

and Health Snapshot of the U.S. Hispanic/Latino

Contexts and Consequences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum

Population.” Prepared for the 2002 National Hispanic Health Leadership Summit. 53

Associates. 61

Cheong. 1998. “Inequality of Access to Educational

Behavioral Factors Affecting Hispanic Health Outcomes.”

Resources: A National Report Card for Eighth-Grade Math.”

13(4):477-503.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 20(4): 253-267. 62

“Does Segregation Still Matter? The Impact of Student

William A. Vega. 2001. “The Role of Discrimination and

Composition on Academic Achievement.” Teachers College

Origin Adults.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

Record 107(9): 1999-2045. 63

23:399-429.

Kao, Grace and Marta Tienda. 1995. “Optimism and

(http://www.houstonisd.org/Page/41879) 64

‘Achieving the Dream’ Cohort Students, Fall 2003, Fall

Zsembik, Barbara A., and Daniel Llanes. 1996.

2005 through Fall 2012 – Newly Designed Progression

“Generational Differences in Educational Attainment

Reports by Ethnicity and Gender.” Retrieved August 21,

among Mexican Americans.” Social Science Quarterly 77(2):

2014 (http://archivevig.hccs.edu/hcc/System%20Home/

363-374.

Departments/OIR/Achieving_the_Dream/PDF_Files/Progr

Klineberg, Stephen L., Jie Wu, and Cristina Barrera. 2014.

essionGenderEthnicity91913.pdf). 65

Houston Surveys (2001-2013). Kinder Institute for Urban

The ACT. 2011. “ACT Profile Report – National.” (http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2011/pdf/profile/Nati

Research.

Houston Community College. 2013. “Progression of

Youth.” Social Science Quarterly 76(1): 1-19.

What Accounts for Health Disparities? Findings from the

Houston Independent School District. 2012. “2012-2013 Facts and Figures.”

Achievement: The Educational Performance of Immigrant 56

Rumberger, Russell W., and Gregory J. Palardy. 2005.

Finch, Brian K., Robert A. Hummer, Bohdan Kol, and Acculturative Stress in the Physical Health of Mexican-

Raudenbush, Stephen W., Randall P. Fotiu, and Yuk Fai

Morales L.S. et al. 2002. “Socioeconomic, Cultural, and Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved

Books, Sue. 2004. Poverty and Schooling in the U.S.:

onal2011.pdf)

De Leon, Arnoldo. 2001. Ethnicity in the Sunbelt: A History

College Board. 2011. “2011 College-Bound Seniors: Total

of Mexican Americans in Houston. Texas A&M University

Group Profile Report.”

Press.

(http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/researc h/cbs2011_total_group_report.pdf).

Klineberg, Stephen L. 2014. The 33 Kinder Institute rd

Houston Area Survey: The Changing Face of the Houston Region. Kinder Institute for Urban Research.

Murdock, Steve H., Michael E. Cline, Mary Zey, P. Wilner Jeanty, and Deborah Perez. 2014. Changing Texas: Implications of Addressing or Ignoring the Texas Challenge. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Page 323.

40 The Kinder Institute for Urban Research

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to Rafael Alvarez, Randy Butler, Rosemary Coffey, Michael Emerson, Bill Fulton, David Medina, Dowell Myers, Ruth LĂ&#x201C;pez Turley, and Jose Villarreal for their valuable suggestions on earlier drafts of this report. We would also like to thank the following good friends for their help and support on this project: Whit Bones, Patricia Cabrera, Steve Capper, Tony Castilleja, Bill Flores, David Flores, Beatrice Garza, George Y. Gonzalez, Bob Harvey, Amy Hodges, Jacqueline S. Martin, Larry Payne, Linda Flores Olson, David Robinson, Orlando Sanchez, J. Michael Trevino, and Alex Wyatt. And a special thanks to Laura Murillo, President of the Houston Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, for her help in disseminating this report to the wider Houston community.

Shared Prospects: Hispanics and the Future of Houston

The 2012 Houston Education Survey was made possible by The 2012 Houston Area Health Survey was made possible by

Rice University, MS 208 | 6100 S. Main, Houston, TX 77005 www.kinder.rice.edu | kinder@rice.edu

SHEAHealth.indd 44

4/8/2014 2:25:19 PM